There Are Alternatives

There are
alternatives
A handbook for preventing

unnecessary immigration
detention (revised edition)
Including the Revised

Community Assessment and
Placement model (CAP)
The International Detention Coalition (IDC) is a unique global

network, of over 300 civil society organisations and individuals
in more than 70 countries that advocate for, research and
provide direct services to refugees, asylum-seekers and
migrants affected by immigration detention.
Coalition members are supported by the IDC Secretariat
office, located in Melbourne, Australia, and regional staff
based in Berlin, Germany, London, United Kingdom, Geneva,
Switzerland, Mexico City, Mexico and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
IDC Secretariat
Level 1, 112 LangridgeStreet
Melbourne Victoria 3066
Australia
Email: info@idcoalition.org
Website: www.idcoalition.org
International Detention Coalition, 2015
ISBN Paperback: 978-0-9871129-8-9
ISBN PDF version: 978-0-9871129-9-6
Published by the International Detention Coalition
Melbourne, Australia
Recommended citation: Sampson, R., Chew, V., Mitchell, G.,
and Bowring, L. There Are Alternatives: A Handbook for
Preventing Unnecessary Immigration Detention (Revised),
(Melbourne: International Detention Coalition, 2015).
Design and layout by Haydn Jones Communication Design
The views expressed in this document are those
of the authors.
This report is available online at http://www.idcoalition.org
Acknowledgements
The revised edition of this Handbook was written by Dr. Robyn Sampson of the
Swinburne Institute for Social Research at Swinburne University of Technology as well
as Vivienne Chew, Grant Mitchell and Lucy Bowring of the International Detention
Coalition (IDC). Research for this revised edition was undertaken by Adele Cubbitt, Elba
Coria Marquez, Gisele Bonnici, Ben Lewis, Jem Stevens, Vanessa Martinez, Leeanne
Torpey, Libby Zerna, Katherine Wright, Caroline Stephens, Athena Rogers, Jocelyne
Cardona, Ahmed Correa, Beth Edgoose, Danielle Grigsby, Shaista Kiran, Thais Pinheiro,
Catherine Stubberfield, Natasha Warchalok and Rosario Rizzo Lara.
The IDC would like to express gratitude to all the interviewees who made time in their
busy schedules to contribute to this research.
The IDC gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the Open Society Foundation,
Oak Foundation, Ford Foundation, Planet Wheeler Foundation, CAMMINA, and AVINA,
which made this Revised Edition possible.
The first edition of this Handbook was a collaboration with the former La Trobe Refugee
Research Centre of La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia. The original research
was undertaken by Robyn Sampson as part of her doctoral studies, which were made
possible by a La Trobe University Post Graduate Award. Her work on the revised edition
was made possible by a grant of the Emerging Research Priorities scheme of Swinburne
University of Technology.
We would like to thank the former and current members of the International Detention
Coalition Advisory Group and other IDC members for their support and comments on
an earlier draft of this report.
Table of Contents
PrefaceI
Executive summary
II
Key findings
1.
Introduction
2. The case for alternatives
3. Community Assessment and Placement: Introducing the Revised CAP model
16
4. Liberty: Presumption against detention
18
Key issue: Ensuring the right to liberty for child migrants
22
5.
Minimum standards
27
6.
Identification and decision-making
35
7. Case management
47
Key issue: Resolving migration status
54
8. Placement options
59
Key issue: Hosting transit migrants
63
9. Conclusion
75
Suggested further reading
77
Glossary
78
Appendix A Research methods
81
Endnotes
85
List of Boxes
Box 1.
A presumption of liberty in law - Argentina
19
Box 2.
Alternatives to detention in law - Poland, Croatia and New Zealand
20
Box 3.
Prohibiting the detention of vulnerable individuals - China
Box 4.
Age assessments
23
Box 5.
Ending immigration detention of children - A snapshot of global trends
24
Box 6.
Appointment of a guardian
26
Box 7.
Unaccompanied children are not to be detained - Hungary
26
Box 8.
Ensuring asylum seekers can meet their basic needs - Spain
29
Box 9.
Formal status and documentation - Various countries
30
Box 10. Regular review - Canada and the European Union

Box 11.
Screening and assessment in a mixed migration context - Zambia
Box 12. Screening and assessment - the United States
21
34
37
39
Box 13. Prohibiting the detention of vulnerable individuals - Turkey
41
Box 14. Identifying individuals who do not need to be detained - Hong Kong
45
Box 15. Case management in the migration context - Two case studies
51
Box 16. Intensive case resolution with complex cases - Australia
52
Box 17.
54
Making plans for life after return - the Netherlands
Box 18. Preparing families for independent departure - Belgium
55
Box 19. Options for those who cannot be deported - Various countries
58
Box 20. Protecting victims of trafficking - Europe
58
Box 21. Reception in the community - Sweden
62
Box 22. Closing detention centres in favour of alternatives - Greece
64
Box 23. Reporting as a monitoring mechanism - Various countries
68
Box 24. Supervision during removal proceedings - the United States
69
Box 25. Bail as a consequence for non-compliance - Canada
70
Box 26. Detention release options - Various countries
72
Box 27. Detention conditions that respect dignity and well-being - Sweden
74
List of Figures
Figure 1: The Revised CAP model - Community Assessment and Placement
16
Figure 2: Understanding the population through individual assessment
36
Figure 3: Assessing vulnerability
40
Figure 4: The case management process
49
THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES (REVISED EDITION)
Preface
Whats new in the revised edition?
The International Detention Coalition first published There Are Alternatives in 2011. This revised
edition updates and expands the original work using the findings from a new piece of research
and the insights and expertise accrued in the four years since the first Handbook was launched.
Begun in 2013, the new research focused on 20 additional countries. It sought to identify alternatives in a wider range of countries including those experiencing transit migration, those hosting
large populations of refugees, asylum seekers, stateless persons or irregular migrants, and/or
those with limited resources available to manage such populations. Seventy-one participants
were interviewed from government, non-government organisations and international bodies.
This Revised Edition contains a number of additions including:
A Revised Community Assessment and Placement (CAP) Model. While the core elements
of the CAP Model remain the same, the model has been redesigned to provide a clearer
indication of overarching principles and standards, and the key processes of identification
and decision-making, case management and placement.
New and updated country case studies based on further research. New additions expand
our knowledge of alternatives in countries experiencing transit migration, large numbers of
irregular migrants and/or those with limited resources available for migration management.
A revised and strengthened definition of alternatives to detention which incorporates the

broad range of persons who may be subject to or at risk of detention by virtue of their
immigration status.
Our approach
This Handbook is written from the perspective that in developing strong migration governance
systems, States should exercise their authority at international borders in line with their human
rights obligations. In particular, they should seek to govern borders in a way that:
Treats all asylum seekers, refugees and migrants humanely and in compliance with international and national law
Benefits local populations and minimises national security concerns

Achieves case resolution in a timely manner
Ensures cost effectiveness
Migration governance objectives cannot be achieved with a rigid control-and-enforcement
approach. A more comprehensive and holistic approach is needed that is tailored to each
countrys specific context. This Revised Handbook is designed to assist in this process and to
contribute to current policy debates. The Handbook presents mechanisms that prevent unnecessary detention and manage and resolve cases in a fair, timely and humane manner from a
community setting. Policy makers and other stakeholders will be able to draw upon our conceptual framework to assess current practice and explore options. Further, the Handbook can act as
a resource for stimulating debate in international and regional forums by establishing concepts
and presenting concrete examples for consideration.
Executive summary
Introduction
This Handbook was written in response to
the growing interest of governments, civil
society and other stakeholders in finding
reliable, cost-effective and humane ways
of managing asylum seekers, refugees and
migrants outside of detention. Immigration
detention is a growing phenomenon as governments strive to regulate unwanted crossborder migration. Detention capacity continues
to expand despite well-established concerns
that it interferes with human rights, harms
health and wellbeing and causes unnecessary human suffering. Further, detention is an
expensive policy that is difficult to implement
and regularly fails to fulfil its objectives.
Over the past five years, the International
Detention Coalition (IDC) has undertaken a
program of research to identify and describe
alternatives to immigration detention (alternatives). This Handbook collates the findings
of this research to offer governments a way of
moving forward with this difficult area of policy.
The Handbook works to instrumentalise protections enshrined in international law and to
strengthen systems so that:
Detention is shown to be legal, necessary

and proportionate in the individual case;
Detention is only used as a last resort in

exceptional cases;
Community options are as effective as

possible.
The case for alternatives

Defining alternatives to detention
The phrase alternatives to immigration
detention (alternatives) is not an established
legal term nor a prescriptive concept, but a
fundamentally different way of approaching the
governance of migration. Alternatives shift the
emphasis away from security and restrictions
to a pragmatic and proactive approach focused
on case resolution. An alternative approach
respects asylum seekers, refugees and migrants
as rights holders who can be empowered to
comply with immigration processes without the
need for restrictions or deprivations of liberty.
With this in mind, the IDC defines
alternatives to detention as:
Any law, policy or practice by which
persons are not detained for reasons
relating to their migration status.
The IDCs approach to alternatives
It is important to note that the IDC considers
that alternatives:
Do not apply only to vulnerable individuals

such as children or refugees
Do not refer only to accommodation

models
Do not necessarily require the application of

conditions such as bail/reporting
Do not refer to alternative forms of

detention
Further, when we take an international perspective and compare existing migration policy and
practice across different contexts, we find:
Most countries do not use detention as the

first option in the majority of cases;
A number of countries rarely resort to

detention, if at all.
II
Benefits of alternatives
The research has identified several benefits
in restricting the application of detention
and prioritising community-based management options. The key benefits are that:
Alternatives are more affordable than
detention
Alternatives have been shown to be up
to 80% cheaper than detention. In the
majority of cases, detention is significantly
more expensive than alternatives. Alternatives have much lower operation costs than
detention, increase independent departures
(compared to deportations) and avoid litigation and compensation claims resulting from
wrongful detention or harmful impacts.
Alternatives are more humane
Alternatives are better placed to uphold the
rights of asylum seekers, refugees, stateless
persons, irregular migrants and other migrants.
They can avoid the harms of detention, reduce
exposure to overcrowding and long-term
detention, and enable greater access to
programs that support health and welfare.
Effective management in the community is
also more likely to uphold fundamental civil,
political, economic, social and cultural rights,
thereby contributing to improved individual
wellbeing and self-sufficiency. This ensures
asylum seekers, refugees and migrants are

better able to contribute to society if residency
is secured, or better equipped for facing the
challenges of departure from the country.
Alternatives are highly effective
Alternatives can achieve high compliance rates,
achieving up to 95% appearance rates and up
to 69% independent departure rates for refused
cases. Alternatives, particularly those incorporating case management and legal advice,
also assist in achieving efficient and sustainable
outcomes by building confidence in the immigration process and reducing unmeritorious
appeals. This can improve final immigration
outcomes, be that integration for individuals
granted status or departure for refused cases.
Common characteristics of successful
alternatives
The research identified common characteristics of successful alternatives and, where
able, established the reasons why these
factors contributed to positive compliance, case resolution, cost, and health and
wellbeing outcomes. Successful alternatives
rely on a range of strategies to keep individuals engaged in immigration procedures
while living in the community. Although such
programs sometimes make use of residential
A COMPARISON OF DETENTION AND ALTERNATIVES

Detention
Is costly
Alternatives
Cost less than detention
Is harmful to health and wellbeing
Support health and wellbeing
Interferes with human rights
Respect and fulfill human rights
Does not encourage participation in case
Strengthen participation in case resolution
resolution processes
Is not an effective deterrent

Can contribute to decisions to undertake
secondary movement
Can expose governments to litigation for

unlawful detention and for the impacts of
detention on health
processes
Improve voluntary and independent

departure rates
Can help stabilize vulnerable individuals

in transit
Avoid wrongful detention and reduce

overcrowding and long-term detention
III
facilities, the location of the individual is not

of primary concern. Instead, the focus is on:
Screening and assessing each

individual case
Providing case management, legal advice

and other mechanisms that support the
individual to work towards case resolution
Ensuring basic needs can be met

Applying conditions or limited restrictions
only where necessary.
The most effective laws, policies and practices
for preventing unnecessary detention
determine (i) whether detention is truly
necessary in an individual case and (ii) how best
to manage and support the individual in the
community to achieve case resolution. These
and other core characteristics are brought
together in the Revised Community Assessment and Placement model (Revised CAP).
Research to date suggests asylum

seekers, refugees and migrants:
Rarely abscond while awaiting
the outcome of a visa application,
status determination or other
immigration process, if in their
intended destination.
Are better able to comply with

requirements if they can meet their
basic needs while in the community.
Are more likely to accept and

comply with a negative decision
on their visa application, status
determination or other immigration
process if they trust:
They have been through a fair

and efficient process
They have been informed and

supported through that process
Key elements of successful

alternatives
The IDCs program of research has identified the main elements of successful
alternatives in terms of cost, compliance
and wellbeing outcomes. These include:
Using screening and assessment to

tailor management and placement
decisions.
Providing holistic case management
focused on case resolution.
Focusing on early engagement.
Ensuring individuals are wellinformed and trust they have been
through a fair and timely process.
Ensuring fundamental rights are
respected and basic needs are met.
Exploring all options to remain in the
country legally and all avenues for
voluntary or independent departure.
Ensuring any conditions imposed are
not overly onerous.
These lessons are brought together
in the Revised CAP model.
IV
They have explored all options to

remain in the country legally
Appear less likely to abscond in

a country they intend to transit if
they can meet their basic needs
through legal avenues, are not at
risk of detention or refoulement,
and remain hopeful regarding future
prospects.
Further, while secondary movement

cannot always be prevented,
screening and assessment can
assist in understanding motivating
factors and facilitating registration
with authorities. However, complete
control in all cases is unrealistic.
Solutions for such situations include
proactive preventative mechanisms
that address the root causes of
irregular migration and build a
stronger international system of
burden sharing.
Community Assessment and Placement:

Introducing the Revised CAP model
Using a strengths-based approach, the IDCs
program of research identified alternatives in
a range of countries and incorporated these
into one framework. The Revised Community
Assessment and Placement Model (Revised
CAP model) is a tool for governments, civil
society and other stakeholders to build
systems that ensure detention is only used
as a last resort and that community options
result in optimal outcomes. The Revised CAP
model combines the overarching principles
of liberty and minimum standards with the
key processes of identification and decisionmaking, placement and case management.
The Revised CAP Model can be used to:

Analyse and assess existing laws, policies
and practices in order to identify gaps,
needs, priorities and goals
Obtain ideas about what is possible and,

using these, develop, expand or improve
alternatives in local contexts
Facilitate dialogue with officials in different

arms of government, between States and
across stakeholders
Guide the decision-making process to

ensure immigration detention is only used
as a last resort
Train officials, practitioners and stakeholders on how to work towards ending

unnecessary detention and how to develop
and implement alternatives
Liberty: Presumption against detention

The first overarching principle of alternatives
is the right to liberty including a presumption
against detention. The right to liberty of person
is a fundamental human right, enshrined in all
major international and regional human rights
instruments. It is guaranteed to all persons
irrespective of legal status including refugees,
asylum seekers, undocumented migrants
and stateless persons. The right to liberty of
person imposes a number of specific limitations on States ability to detain, including
that detention is justified by a legitimate State
objective, is in accordance with the law, and
is not arbitrary. In many countries, a migrants
right to liberty is preserved throughout the
migration process. In these countries, immigration officials are prevented from using
confinement when other options suffice.
The right to liberty and a clear presumption against detention are established by
adopting laws, policies and practices that:
Establish a presumption of liberty

Provide a mandate to apply alternatives in
the first instance
Only permit detention when alternatives

cannot be applied
Prohibit the detention of vulnerable

individuals
Minimum standards include:

Respect for fundamental rights
Meeting basic needs

Legal status and documentation
Legal advice and interpretation
Fair and timely case resolution
Regular review of placement decisions
Identification and decision-making
Successful migration governance programs
understand that refugees, asylum seekers,
stateless persons, irregular migrants and
other non-citizens without legal status are a
highly diverse population with different needs
and motivations. Differentiating between
these different groups will ensure informed
decisions about management and placement
options. Such decisions can be reviewed and
adjusted as needed with regular review.
Through screening and ongoing assessment,
authorities can identify and assess levels of
risk and vulnerability as well as the strengths
and needs of each person. The research identified several areas of assessment including:
Legal obligations
Identity, health and security checks
Vulnerability
Individual case factors
Community context
Minimum standards
The second principle underpinning alternatives is minimum standards. There are a number
of minimum standards which States must
respect and uphold for all individuals, regardless of legal status. These minimum standards
also help to ensure the proper functioning of
migration governance systems and the effectiveness of alternatives. Without minimum
standards in place, alternatives are less likely
to achieve desired rates of compliance, case
resolution and respect for human rights.
VI
Case management, support and resolution

The most successful alternatives use case
management across all stages to ensure a coordinated and comprehensive approach to each
case. Case management centres on understanding and responding to the unique needs
and challenges of the individual and their
context. Case management builds on an individuals strengths, identifies vulnerability or protection concerns, and addresses needs as able.
The approach promotes coping and wellbeing
by facilitating access to support services
and networks. By ensuring timely access to
all relevant information and meeting other

serious needs as able, case management also
builds confidence in the immigration process
and promotes informed decision-making by
both the individual and government decisionmaker. Case management can range in intensity
from limited engagement with self-sufficient
migrants through to intensive support for
complex cases and/or for return preparation.
Case resolution is not the same as case
management, although they often overlap.
Case resolution is focused on finding a
permanent or temporary migration outcome.
While this responsibility ultimately sits with
immigration authorities, case management can contribute to timely case resolution by identifying legal, practical and personal
barriers to likely outcomes and working on
shared solutions. Case resolution can draw
from a range of solutions including various
visa and departure options. These include,
inter alia, regularisation programs, humanitarian or protection visas, other permanent
visas, short-term bridging visas, departure
to a third country, return to a different area
of the country of citizenship, and additional
resources to support sustainable return.
Community without conditions

Liberty or unconditional placement in the
community is the preferred placement option
and is appropriate for the majority of cases.
This includes when there is no legal basis to
detain and when such placement will meet a
States legitimate aim, such as ensuring completion of a legal migration process. Satisfactory
outcomes are often achieved when unconditional placement in the community is supported
with minimum standards and case management. An individual placed in the community
without conditions may nonetheless be responsible for ensuring their good status and active
participation in the applicable migration
procedure. This might include appearing at
immigration appointments, hearings or interviews, undertaking acts to assist in achieving
case resolution, and respecting standard
visa or residency requirements. The requirement of normal participation in migration
procedures differs from conditions or restrictions on freedom of movement, as the latter
are more onerous and impact on a persons
right to liberty and freedom of movement.
Placement options
There are various placement options available
to the State in managing an individual pending
case resolution. These include placement
in the community without conditions or
placement in the community with such conditions as determined to be necessary and
proportionate in the individual case. Immigration detention is included as the measure
of last resort to be used in exceptional cases,
provided the standards of necessity, reasonableness and proportionality have been met.
VII
Conditions or limited restrictions

in the community
If, following screening and assessment,
serious concerns arise about unconditional
placement in the community, there are a range
of additional mechanisms that can be introduced to promote ongoing engagement
and compliance with authorities. As conditions invariably involve some restrictions on
an individuals right to liberty, these must
always be shown to be necessary, reasonable and proportional in the individual case.
Conditions may include the following mechanisms:
Monitoring
Supervision
Surety and other consequences for noncompliance
Detention as a last resort
International human rights law and standards
make clear that immigration detention should
be used only as a last resort in exceptional
cases after all other options have been shown
to be inadequate in the individual case. The
use of confinement with people in an administrative procedure is highly controversial due to
its negative impact on health, wellbeing and
human rights. Detention should be avoided
entirely for vulnerable individuals and be in
accordance with international, regional and
national law and standards. This includes the
requirement that the standards of necessity,
reasonableness and proportionality have
been met in the individual case. Notwithstanding these serious concerns, detention is
included here to be used only as a last resort
for exceptional cases after a comprehensive process has determined before an independent judicial authority that all other options
will not address the identified concerns.
VIII
Detailed information on areas of detention

that require vigilance and oversight to avoid
arbitrary and excessively harmful detention
are available elsewhere. 2 The broad areas
of concern include detention and immigration procedures; treatment and safeguards;
safety, order and discipline; material conditions; activities; health care; personnel/staffing;
and persons in situations of risk/vulnerability.
Conclusion
Dealing with irregular migration is an everyday
area of governance. As the Revised Handbook
shows, with effective laws and policies, clear
systems and good implementation, asylum
seekers, refugees and migrants can be
managed in the community in most instances.
Screening and assessing the cases of individuals subject to, or at risk of, detention enables
authorities to identify needs and introduce
appropriate supports and, as needed, conditions in the community. Through these
approaches, authorities can manage people in
the community in the majority of cases without
the financial and human cost that detention
incurs. The Revised Handbook shows costeffective, reliable and humane alternatives are employed in a variety of settings
to the benefit of a range of stakeholders
affected by this challenging area of policy.
Key findings
International human rights laws and standards make clear that immigration detention should be used only as a last resort in exceptional cases
after all other options have been shown to be inadequate in the individual case. This Handbook provides readers with the guidance needed
to successfully avoid unnecessary detention and to ensure community
options are as effective as possible. This edition presents the Revised
Community Assessment and Placement model (Revised CAP model)
alongside new and updated country examples. While the basic elements
of the original CAP model remain the same, the revised model separates
the overarching principles from the bureaucratic processes involved.
There are alternatives
Alternatives are more affordable
There is a range of alternatives to detention

that governments can draw upon to reduce
unnecessary detention and increase the
success of community-based management. Many solutions exist. In fact, the IDC
has identified more than 250 examples in
over 60 countries. This includes countries
with large numbers of asylum seekers,
refugees and migrants and fewer resources.
Alternatives are up to 80% cheaper

than detention due to lower running
costs. They also eliminate costly litigation and compensation claims.
Alternatives can be applied

in the majority of cases
Detention is rarely necessary while working
with asylum seekers, refugees and migrants
towards satisfactory case resolution.
Placement options range from open accommodation in the community with minimal
requirements for low-risk groups through
to intensive supervision and case management for populations of highest concern,
such as non-citizens facing deportation after completing a prison sentence.
Alternatives are more humane

Alternatives are less harmful than detention.
Community placement supports health and
wellbeing and upholds human rights. Alternatives are not only more humane, but also
see asylum seekers, refugees and migrants
better placed to move forward with their
life once their migration status is resolved,
whether it be integration or departure.
Alternatives are highly effective

Alternatives achieve effective case resolution outcomes. Alternatives have been
shown to achieve up to 95% appearance
rates and up to 69% voluntary and independent return rates for refused cases.
1. Introduction
1.1 Governing migration
The governance of migration is evolving in
response to changes in the patterns and
make-up of migrant populations. The number
of migrants crossing national borders has
increased over recent decades. 3 It is well documented that migration is associated with a
range of social and economic benefits for
destination countries as well as for those who
migrate. 4 Governments have recognised these
benefits by developing avenues to enable legal
migration for a variety of purposes including
employment, education, family reunion and
tourism. Regular migration flows through
these legal avenues far outweigh irregular
movement. 5 However, significant migration
does occur outside of legal channels. In 2010,
the International Organisation for Migration
(IOM) estimated 10-15% of the worlds 214
million migrants were undocumented, the
majority of whom had become irregular
after first travelling via legal avenues. 6
The regulation of migration is a core function
of modern governments, resulting in a
range of systems to govern the movement
of foreigners on a nations territory. Despite
the success of many of these systems in
managing large movements of people well,
some people have come to believe migration
is out-of-control. Such perceptions are often
linked to concerns about national security
and crime, job availability, and the erosion
of cultural identity and traditions.7 In these
situations, irregular migration can become
a point of contention and political debate,
making the regulation of migration a challenging and sensitive area of policy.
Although managing migration is a constantly
changing and complex task, it is an everyday
phenomenon and a normal part of operating
a government. All countries are facing the
dilemma of monitoring legal migration

programs and managing irregular migrants
while also ensuring protection is available
for asylum seekers, refugees, stateless
persons and vulnerable individuals.
1.2 The use of detention in

migration governance
The use of immigration detention has been
growing over the last twenty years as
governments strive to control borders. 8 In
some countries, concerns about national
security and terrorist attacks have justified
the expansion of detention. 9 Whatever
the cause, many countries have intensified efforts to reduce the number of asylum
seekers, refugees and irregular migrants on
their territory.10 Detention has become a core
element of this trend. Previously, detention
was restricted to short periods during deportation. Now, it is used by several countries
on-arrival or for the duration of claims
processing. Increasingly, destination countries
are investing in the capacity of neighbouring
transit countries to intercept and detain
foreigners on the move.11 This externalization
of border control is evident in the European
Union, which has been investing significantly
in the capacity of its neighbours including
Ukraine, Libya and Turkey to detect, detain and
deter asylum seekers, refugees and migrants
who are planning irregular onward travel to
Europe.12 Similar dynamics can be seen in the
political and financial investments made by
the United Sates in the detention capacities
of Guatemala and Mexico, and by Australia
in Indonesia, Nauru and Papua New Guinea.13
As a result of such trends, it is estimated that
hundreds of thousands of people are detained
around the world, although the number of
detainees at any one time is unknown.14
1.3 Concerns regarding

immigration detention
Immigration detention is used by governments as both a migration governance tool
and as a political tool.15 As a tool for managing
irregular migration, it is used to limit the
entry of irregular migrants to the territory; for
identity, health and security checks and other
screening processes; to hold individuals with
no valid visa while their status is assessed;
and to ensure compliance with negative visa
application outcomes, namely deportation.
Detention is also sometimes used by governments in an attempt to address broader social
and political issues, such as deterring future
asylum seekers and irregular migrants, to
provide a sense of control over borders for
citizens, and to respond to political pressure.16
In this sense, detention is a symbolic act
used to convey a message to a range of
people who are not being detained themselves. While these are important and complex
issues impacting governments, there are
serious concerns about the use of detention
for these purposes. The use of detention
for these reasons is unsupportable given:
Detention is not an effective deterrent

Detention does not support case
resolution, including departure or
integration
Detention has been shown to harm health

and wellbeing
Detention interferes with human rights

Detention is expensive
1.3.1 Detention is not an effective deterrent
There is no empirical evidence to suggest
that the threat of being detained deters
irregular migration.17 Rather, existing evidence,
and government and judicial statements18
suggest a policy of detention is neither
effective nor reasonable in deterring refugees
and irregular migrants. Despite increasingly tough detention policies being intro-
duced over the past 20 years, the number

of irregular arrivals has not reduced. 19
There is no empirical
evidence to suggest
that the threat of being
detained deters irregular
migration
Several studies have been undertaken to
establish which factors most impact the choice
of destination of asylum seekers and irregular
migrants. 20 According to this research, the
principal aim of asylum seekers and refugees
is to reach a place of safety. 21 Most asylum
seekers have very limited understanding of
the migration policies of destination countries
before arrival and are often reliant on people
smugglers to choose their destination. 22 Those
who are aware of the prospect of detention
before arrival believe it is an unavoidable part
of the journey, that they will still be treated
humanely despite being detained, and that it
is a legitimate right of States if undertaken for
identity and health checks. 23 Rather than being
influenced primarily by immigration policies
such as detention, most refugees choose destinations where they will be reunited with family
or friends; where they believe they will be in a
safe, tolerant and democratic society; where
there are historical links between their country
and the destination country; where they can
already speak the language of the destination country; or where they believe they will be
able to find secure work quickly due to general
levels of prosperity. 24 One study also found
that the majority of refugees who had experienced detention did not pass on a message
of deterrence to people overseas as the relief
of escaping persecution and reaching a place
of safety overrode the trauma and sense of
rejection they had experienced as a result of
detention. 25 This evidence shows detention
has little impact on destination choices.
1.3.2 Detention does not support

case resolution
Immigration detention can be ineffective and
counterproductive at ensuring compliance with
immigration processes. Immigration detention
can negatively impact case resolution because
the risk of detention and deportation will often
deter people from engaging with authorities in the first place. Further, the mental and
physical harms caused by detention impact
an individuals ability to comply with immigration processes. Immigration detention is
usually experienced as an extreme injustice, as
detainees feel they are treated like criminals
despite believing they are innocent of any
crime. 26 This feeling of injustice can saturate
their experience of the assessment process
and lead them to believe that their case
has not been fairly heard. This can make it
difficult to work towards return for those
who have been found not to have protection
needs. Deportation can be extremely difficult
to achieve if the person does not want to
comply, even with detained populations. 27
health and energy levels. 29 This can reduce

their ability to organize administrative issues, such as sourcing documents
to prove their identity, or to access legal
advice regarding future prospects.
Impact of detention on departure
In relation to departure, detention also fails to
guarantee departure outcomes for persons
with no right to remain in the country. Many
factors influence a persons willingness to
return to their country of origin, most of
which fall outside the influence of domestic
policies. 30 Detention does not easily overcome
these broader issues to result in return
decisions. 31 In terms of deportation, there
is a gap between the number of migrants
detained for deportation purposes, and the
number of those who are actually deported. 32
This is because deportation is a complex
process involving multiple countries, agencies,
and companies. People who are stateless
are most likely to stagnate in detention for
long periods with little to no control over the
blockades preventing their deportation. 33
Impact of detention on case resolution

Detainees are often held in detention during
an administrative process associated with their
migration status. This may include (initial)
assessment of their protection claims, assessment of reasons to remain in the country,
and preparation for departure from the
country. Detention does not, in and of itself,
contribute to the resolution of these administrative issues. As one study on the Netherlands shows, detention does not change
the intentions of detainees to either stay or
leave the country; however, if a detainee was
already predisposed to depart the country,
detention will sharpen this intention. 28
Moreover, detention can reduce the ability
of detainees to contribute to case resolution processes by reducing their access
to the outside world and eroding mental
Research in the United Kingdom has

shown indefinite detention does not usually
lead to deportation; instead, if deportation has not been achieved within
one year, it is unlikely to occur. 34 Further,
migrants who are facing punitive restrictions such as detention are more likely to
feel they have nothing to lose and seek
unlawful avenues to stay in the country. 35
Impact of detention on integration
With respect to integration, a significant
proportion of detained migrants are released
with temporary or permanent residency,
taking their experience of detention with
them as they re-enter society. Immigration
detention affects integration upon release
in a range of ways. Detention has significant impacts on mental health and sense
of self that subsequently affect integration. 36 These are discussed further below.
These affect a persons ability to live satisfying and productive lives and to develop
trusting relationships. Work, study, family and
friendships are all affected. Concentration and
memory are also affected by long periods in
detention, subsequently impacting language
acquisition and work or study outcomes. 37
1.3.3 Detention has been shown to
harm health and wellbeing
Another major concern is that the potential
impact of detention on the health of those
detained is so severe that its use as a message
of deterrence and control cannot be justified.
This is similarly the case with the use of
detention as a blanket response to groups
of migrants in particular circumstances.
Research has demonstrated that being in
detention is associated with poor mental
health including high levels of depression,
anxiety and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD) 38 and poor quality of life. 39 One study
found clinically significant symptoms of
depression were present in 86% of detainees,
anxiety in 77%, and PTSD in 50%, with
approximately one quarter reporting suicidal
thoughts. 40 Further, mental health deteriorates
the longer someone is detained. 41 The impact
on children is particularly disturbing, especially as the consequences for their cognitive
and emotional development may be lifelong. 42 For adults, it has been found that the
debilitating impacts of detention extend well
beyond the period of confinement, especially
for those detained for prolonged periods. 43
Options that do not rely on confinement are all
the more important in light of this evidence.
Impacts such as these not only affect
the life experiences of former detainees;
they also create a greater burden on the
receiving society. For example, mental

health impairment increases reliance on
health care and, potentially, social welfare
systems. The lifetime health costs of long
term detention have been estimated at an
additional AUD $25,000 per person. 44
1.3.4 Detention interferes with human rights
The use of detention for the purposes of
deterrence or political gain is inconsistent
with international human rights law. Human
rights law establishes the right to liberty and
protection from arbitrary detention. 45 Further,
detainees are at greater risk of human rights
abuses due to their placement in an institution of confinement. As detention interferes with an individuals human rights, it
must be applied only in those circumstances
outlined in law; in proportion to the objectives underlying the reason for the detention;
when necessary in that particular case; and
applied without discrimination. 46 Less restrictive measures must be shown to be inadequate
before detention can be applied. As such,
detention must be shown to be necessary in
each individual case rather than being applied
en masse. The Handbook works to instrumentalise the protections enshrined in international law by identifying the ways in which
governments can ensure detention is only
ever applied as an exceptional measure.
1.3.5 Detention is expensive
Immigration detention is an incredibly
expensive policy to maintain, due to the
capital costs incurred with building detention
infrastructure and the costs of personnel
required to operate an institution. This is
significantly more expensive than community-based management programs. The
cost savings are detailed in the Section 2.4.2
on Cost Benefits later in the Handbook.
Detention is a highly problematic policy for

governments. It fails to fulfil the aim of deterrence, is counterproductive to case resolution, causes serious harm and suffering for
those detained, often fails to fulfil rights and
is an overly expensive option in light of the
alternatives. The issues of political authority
and public sentiment that sometimes arise
in relation to irregular migration are best
addressed without recourse to detention.
Strong leadership and confidence in the effectiveness of migration policy and its implementation can counteract some of these concerns.
following regions: the Americas; Asia-Pacific;

Europe; the Middle East and North Africa;
and South and East Africa. The selection
strategy was designed to include a variety of
States experiencing transit migration; large
numbers of refugees, asylum seekers, stateless
persons or irregular migrants; and/or those
with limited resources available to manage
such populations. Data collection involved a
literature review for each country and region;
in-depth interviews with 71 participants from
18 countries, either in person or by Skype; and
international fieldwork, conducted by Adele
Cubbitt, in Turkey, Indonesia, and Mexico.
1.4 Our program of research

on alternatives
An additional piece of research on detention

and alternatives in Mexico was undertaken
by the IDC Americas office in 2012. That
study involved field research and interviews with 32 participants from government and from local, regional and international non-government organisations.
This Revised Handbook draws from the

IDCs program of research on alternatives and from the expert knowledge of IDC
secretariat staff and members developed
during their engagement with governments over the past five years. An overview
of these sources of information is provided
here. A detailed description of the research
methods is provided in Appendix I.
The First Edition of the Handbook,
published in 2011, came out of a study
conducted in 2009/2010. Data collection
for that study included a detailed literature review; an Internet-based survey; and
international fieldwork in nine countries,
conducted by Dr Robyn Sampson. The
field work consisted of in-depth interviews
with 57 participants and eight site visits.
A second study begun in 2013 to extend the
research and to test the findings of the first
study against a wider range of settings. The
second study aimed to identify and describe
alternatives in 20 additional countries. Four
countries were selected from each of the
Finally, the IDC secretariat staff and

member groups have developed a significant body of expert knowledge on alternatives. IDC staff and members have run and/
or attended a series of major international,
regional and national roundtables and consultations on alternatives that have elicited
valuable information and insights that have
informed the revision of this Handbook.
2. The case
for alternatives
2.1 Alternatives to detention defined
The term alternatives to immigration
detention (alternatives) does not have
an established legal definition, nor is it a
prescriptive concept. As a relatively recent
term, it is not defined in the same way
by all stakeholders. 47 Some stakeholders,
like the IDC, maintain an expansive definition that incorporates a range of options
available to a State to avoid detention. Other
stakeholders limit the definition of alternatives to conditions, such as reporting,
or to specific accommodation models.
The IDCs program of research reinforces
the benefits of an expansive definition of
alternatives. The IDC defines alternatives to
immigration detention (alternatives) as:
Any law, policy or practice by which
persons are not detained for reasons
relating to their migration status.
This definition strengthens and clarifies the
definition put forward in the first edition of
the Handbook. The language is simplified and
a wider range of people at risk of immigration detention is encompassed. In line with this
definition, this Handbook focuses on engagement, rather than enforcement, as the best
approach for developing effective and humane
systems for governing migration. It respects
asylum seekers, refugees and migrants as
rights holders who can be empowered to
work towards case resolution without the
need for unnecessary restrictions or deprivations of liberty or freedom of movement.
A more restrictive approach to alternatives
is often concerned with control rather than
engagement and collaboratively working
toward case resolution. More specifically, narrower definitions may overlook the
strengths of the existing range of everyday
policies or practices used to support and
manage people in the community. For
example, a majority of countries in South
America and the European Union do not
normally detain asylum seekers on arrival.
Instead, they protect and support them in
open reception centres in the community
while their claims for protection are processed.
These open reception centres are not generally
viewed by those States as an alternative to
detention, as they do not generally detain
asylum seekers. However, if applied in other
countries or applied in that country with a
different group of migrants then it would
be considered an alternative to detention.
Similarly, several countries only use detention
as an exceptional measure in a small number
of cases and/or for short periods. Their system
ensures most people remain in the community
with freedom of movement. Rather than identifying those people in detention who are
eligible for an alternative, these countries
only use detention as the last resort. Their
earlier options are not seen as alternatives to
detention, as detention has not been contemplated. However, they could be an alternative
for other States that do detain those people.
Failing to include such policies and practices
in this Handbook would unnecessarily limit
insights into the most effective models for
reducing the use of detention and restrictions on liberty in the first place. A broad
conceptual and practical approach to alternatives allows for wide-ranging discussions
and increases understanding of those policies
that reduce the need for detention and other
restrictions. By adopting this approach, we
hope to stimulate discussions about whether
people currently in detention really need to
be there, and whether existing systems for
managing people outside of detention can
be translated into a program of response

for those groups currently detained.
In this Handbook we use the term migrant to
refer to the broad range of non-citizens who
may be at risk of detention worldwide. This
can include, inter alia, stateless persons, trafficking victims, labour migrants, visa overstayers and irregular migrants. We use this
term because detention is applied to a wide
range of individuals without migration status
across the world. The breadth of the term
migrant further highlights the importance of
screening and assessment to understand the
vulnerabilities and risks in each individual case.
2.2 The IDCs approach to alternatives

It is important to note that the IDC
considers that alternatives:
Do not apply only to vulnerable individuals

such as children or refugees
Do not refer only to accommodation

models
Do not require the application of

conditions, such as bail/reporting
Do not refer to alternative forms of

detention
Such views can contribute to concerns that
implementing alternatives is an overwhelming
task that requires substantial investment in
new resources; that alternatives encourage
or require restrictions on liberty; and that
discussing alternatives normalises detention.
Alternatives do not need to be anything more
than what already happens to people in the
community: any community measure is or can
be considered an alternative. Where effective
community measures are operating, the key
is to ensure all migrants including refugees,
asylum seekers, stateless persons and irregular
migrants are integrated into such programs.
It is also important to draw a clear distinction
between alternatives, and alternative forms
of detention. Some forms of management

substantially curtail or completely deny liberty
and freedom of movement. This includes some
types of electronic monitoring, strict curfews
and other movement controls. Whether this
is an intended or unintended outcome, these
are regarded in this Handbook as a form of
detention and as such are included in Section
8.3 Detention as a last resort, with review.
2.3 What do we already know

about alternatives?
Despite the growing use of detention globally,
recent years have also witnessed a growing
momentum around exploring and implementing alternatives. 48 Research has gradually
developed to respond to government interest
in more detailed information about alternatives and the relative effectiveness of different
strategies. However, the large proportion
of existing studies have focused on alternatives for asylum seekers, 49 thereby excluding
major groups of migrants currently detained.
Some consideration has been given to interpreting international human rights frameworks that provide a mandate for alternatives. 50 However, systematic assessment of
national programs is minimal, 51 with evaluations by government generally restricted to
assessments of pilot programs. 52 While nongovernment organisations have stepped in to
bridge this gap when able, 53 the lack of access
to government statistics has resulted in smaller
studies. The lack of initiative or disclosure by
governments in evaluating their migration
governance programs has restricted productive dialogue, as the effectiveness of alternatives in different contexts and in terms of
different objectives is not always known.
Notwithstanding the growing use of detention
in relation to migration matters, an overview
of existing policy and practice at the international level highlights that there are extensive
systems in operation designed to work with
asylum seekers, refugees and migrants in a
community setting while a migration issue

is being resolved. By maintaining a broad
approach to alternatives we find that:
Most countries do not use detention as the

first option in the majority of cases.
A number of countries rarely resort to

detention, if at all.
Countries are increasingly developing and

implementing alternatives.
Most countries do not rely primarily on
detention to manage asylum seekers, refugees
and migrants while resolving their migration
matter. For instance, a large proportion of
irregular migrants in many countries are
tourists or short-term visitors who overstay
their visa. 54 These people are rarely detained
but rather provided with avenues to resolve
their situation via independent departure
or application for another visa or migration
status. Further, in countries with large
numbers of mixed migrants and migrants
intending to transit, the vast majority were
at risk of detention, rather than actually
being detained. This was most evident in
countries where there were high numbers of
irregular migrants, and where it was recognised that the cost of detention and the
number of migrants who might be detained
are just too great. Despite a growing reliance
on detention, most countries still do not use
detention as the first option in the majority
of cases. In fact, a number of countries
rarely resort to immigration detention, if
at all. 55 This is important to acknowledge
and draw on as a source of expertise that
might be applied with other migrants.
2.4 Benefits of alternatives

The IDCs program of research has focused
on policies and programs that reduce the use
of detention, while keeping in mind costs,
compliance rates, effective and timely case
resolution, as well as a concern to uphold
health, wellbeing and human rights. There
are several benefits in restricting the application of detention and prioritising communitybased management options. Alternatives:
Improve compliance with immigration and

case resolution processes
Cost less than detention

Reduce wrongful detention and litigation
Reduce overcrowding and long-term
detention
Increase voluntary or independent

departure rates
Respect, protect and fulfill human rights

Can help stabilise vulnerable individuals in
transit
Improve integration outcomes for

approved cases
Improve individual health and wellbeing

Improve local infrastructure and other
migrant support systems
Although there is no consistent data available
on each of these outcomes, information
collected during the program of research
and from existing studies has been included
throughout the Handbook as able. In particular,
the research focused on compliance and case
resolution, cost, and health and wellbeing.
These are discussed in more detail below.
2.4.1 Compliance and case resolution
Research shows that most people usually do
the right thing and follow the rules most of the
time. 56 This tendency to comply with a legitimate authority with minimal intervention holds
true for non-citizens in relation to migration
laws. 57 Indeed, one comparative study of
asylum seekers in Canada and Switzerland
found four motivational factors contribute
to compliance: 1) the refugee predicament
and fear of removal; 2) law-abidingness and
commitment to obey the law; 3) trust in the
refugee determination process and perceptions of fairness in the host country; and 4)
a desire to avoid irregular residence, with
attendant hardship and vulnerability. 58 Alternatives that build trust in the fairness of the
immigration process can promote compliance as well as more efficient and sustainable immigration decisions. In turn, this can
improve final outcomes whether this is integration for those granted status or independent departure for refused cases.
The data on rates of compliance support these
general claims. The available data are most
substantive for those still awaiting a final visa
or status decision in their preferred destination:
One study collating evidence from 13

programs found compliance rates among
asylum seekers awaiting a final outcome
ranged between 80-99.9%. 59
In the United States, migrants in the ISAP

community supervision program appeared
at scheduled court hearings 99% of the
time and at removal hearings 95% of the
time. 60
In Canada, a supervision program with

a mixed group of high-risk detainees
maintained a 96.35% retention rate in the
2009-2010 financial year61 and a 94.31%
retention rate in the 2013-2014 financial
year. 62
In Australia, a case management pilot

with vulnerable migrants recorded a 94%
compliance rate over a three year period. 63
Meanwhile, migrants issued with bridging
visas maintained a compliance rate of
approximately 90% in 2009-2010. 64
In the United Kingdom, people released

from immigration detention on temporary
admission, temporary release or bail had
a compliance rate of 90.8% in 2013, and
91.9% between January and September
2014. 65
For those not in their preferred destination,
it appears community placement can also
be effective in many cases if the individual
can meet their basic needs, remain hopeful
10
about future possibilities and is not at risk

of detention or deportation. For example:
Hong Kong maintains a 97% compliance

rate with asylum seekers and torture
claimants, despite the disincentive that
those with successful claims are not
allowed permanent residency status (see
Box 14 Hong Kong).
In Indonesia, shelters for unaccompanied refugee and asylum seeking children

have seen very low absconding rates of
14% in 2013, and 6% in 2014. 66 Children are
supported in these shelters while awaiting
confirmation of refugee status from
UNHCR Indonesia and a durable solution.
In Thailand, an NGO-run program provides

financial assistance and a caseworker
for unaccompanied refugee and asylum
seeking children in the community. Where
needed, children are referred to health,
psychosocial and legal services. Although
relatively recently established, the program
has seen very low absconding rates of
3%, with only 6 out of 186 children having
absconded between September 2014
to May 2015. Of these, most absconded
immediately after registration, before a
caseworker had been assigned and prior to
any assistance being provided to them.
In addition, solid compliance and departure
rates can be achieved with groups who
are required to depart the country.
In the United States, migrants in removal

proceedings who are in a supervision
program comply with removal orders 84%
of the time, compared with only 13% for
those without support or supervision. 67
This supervision program is built on
the back of a pilot project in the late
1990s which almost doubled the rate of
compliance with final orders: 69% of participants in intensive supervision complied
with a final order compared with 38% of
the comparison group released on bond or
parole (Box 24).
In Australia, a case management pilot

with vulnerable migrants achieved a
93% compliance rate. In addition, 60% of
those not granted a visa to remain in the
country departed independently despite
long periods in the country and significant
barriers to their return (Box 16).
In Sweden, a caseworker system with

asylum seekers has been highly successfully in achieving effective case resolution.
The vast majority of persons required to
leave the country depart without the need
for detention and deportation procedures.
In 2012, 68% of third country nationals
ordered to leave the country departed
voluntarily or through an Assisted
Voluntary Return program. 68 In 2011, the
equivalent figure was 63% (Box 21).
Avoiding unnecessary cases of detention

and reducing the length of time someone
is detained are key strategies for reducing
the costs associated with detention.
Community management programs
described in this report were much less
expensive than detention to operate on
a day-to-day basis. Table 1 provides a
snapshot comparison of the cost of alternatives compared to detention in several
countries. Further, an independent study
found that the United States could save over
$1.44 billion of its $2 billion detention budget
by detaining only noncitizens with serious
crimes and otherwise using alternatives.71
Table 1 Comparing the cost of detention
and alternatives
In Belgium, an evaluation of family units

revealed that since the inception of the
project, the vast majority of families (70%
to 80%) stayed engaged in immigration
processes, with high rates of voluntary
return and relatively low rates of
absconding (Box 18).
These figures demonstrate the ability of
community management programs to
sustain significant levels of compliance with
a range of populations. It should also be
stressed that compliance is with immigration processes and not with the alternative
per se. Not all alternatives require ongoing
engagement or are linked to immigration
processing. Indeed, migrants are more likely
to cease complying with alternatives for
practical and personal reasons, such as the
cost of travel to fulfil reporting requirements
or lack of information about the process. 69
2.4.2 Cost benefits
Significant cost benefits are also achieved
by prioritising alternatives.70 If cases can be
managed in community settings without
a reduction in immigration processing
times, cost savings will be inevitable.
Country
Australia
Cost of
Detention
Cost of
Alternative
(per person
per day)
(per person
per day)
AU$65572
AU$8.8073
to AU$3874
Austria
12075
17 to 2476
Belgium
180- 19077
90 to 12078
Canada
CA$17979
CA$10-1280
Hong Kong
n/a
HK$108 81
Indonesia
n/a
US$8 82
US$158 83
US$10.55 84
United
States
More efficient systems can also reduce the

overall cost of operations. Assisted voluntary
departures cost less than escorted deportations: in the European Union independent
departure to another country within the EU
costs 300-600 compared with up to 1,500
for escorted deportations. 85 Forced removal
has been estimated to cost ten times more
11
than independent departure in the United

Kingdom at 1,100 compared with 11,000. 86
Similarly, the Australian government reported
that the non-common costs of an assisted
independent return from the community
are approximately one third of those of a
locate, detain and remove case: approximately $1,500 compared with $5,000. 87 Finally,
preventing or reducing cases of wrongful
or arbitrary detention avoids costly litigation. The United Kingdom paid out over 2
million over the three years to 112 individuals for wrongful detention. 88 Meanwhile,
the Australian government paid out over
AU$16 million in compensation to former
detainees over a ten year period. 89 Finally,
Australian research has found that the lifetime
additional health costs of the trauma of
detention to be AU$25,000 per person. 90
2.4.3 Protecting health and wellbeing
Protecting health and wellbeing is the third
factor used to assess the success of alternatives. As detailed in Section 1.3.3, detention
erodes health and wellbeing and this effect
intensifies over time. It is well established that
the health and wellbeing of people who are
detained, or have previously been detained,
is significantly poorer than comparative
groups who have never been in detention. 91
Damaging experiences particular to detention
include confinement, an overwhelming sense
of injustice, broken relationships and isolation
from society. 92 The impact of detention
on the cognitive and emotional development of children is even more significant due
to the long-term impacts on their lives.
Community assessment and placement
promotes better health and wellbeing
outcomes when compared with immigration detention. All people awaiting an immigration outcome experience stress and
anxiety, 93 and placement in the community
placement does not take away this uncertainty.
However, as one study shows, placement
12
in the community assists in improving the

wellbeing of [migrants] when compared
with detention and does not exacerbate
existing trauma.94 Further, former detainees
reported that community placement was less
harmful due to several factors including a
more natural environment; not having to live
in close quarters with people who are angry
or distressed; freedom to have privacy and
time to oneself; and freedom to make choices
about daily life, including what to eat and
when, who to visit and how time is spent. 95
As one mother stated, in detention our son
was bored, he didnt play with the other kids,
he cried, he just said, I want to get out. But
here he is doing much better. It has made a
big difference being in the community.96
Appropriate management in the
community is more likely to uphold human
rights and support wellbeing, ensuring
people can contribute fully to society
if residency is secured or better able to
face difficult futures such as return. 97
2.5 Common characteristics of

successful alternatives
The IDCs program of research has found
that the most significant and effective strategies for preventing unnecessary detention are
those that determine (i) whether detention is
truly necessary in the individual case, and (ii)
how that individual would best be supported
to achieve case resolution while located in a
community setting. A range of strategies keep
individuals engaged in immigration procedures while living in the community. This
approach to alternatives means the location
of the individual is not of primary concern.
Instead, the focus is on breaking down the
population with screening and assessment
and ensuring the community setting contains
the necessary support mechanisms and structures that will best enable the individual to
work with authorities towards case resolution.
2.5.1 Elements of successful alternatives

The IDCs program of research has identified the main elements of successful alternatives in terms of cost, compliance and
wellbeing outcomes. These include:
Using screening and assessment to tailor

management and placement decisions
Providing holistic case management

focused on case resolution
their education visa; and migrants who have

committed a crime and are facing deportation. In addition, recognised refugees crossing
borders without papers and undocumented
asylum seekers awaiting a refugee determination face risks of detention or refoulement despite the international obligations
owing to them. Identifying and distinguishing
these different populations ensures authorities respond appropriately and effectively.
Focusing on early engagement

Ensuring individuals are well-informed and
trust they have been through a fair and
timely process
Ensuring fundamental rights are respected

and basic needs are met
Exploring all options to remain in the

country legally and all avenues for
voluntary or independent departure
Ensuring any conditions imposed are not

overly onerous
These lessons are brought together
in the Revised CAP model.
2.5.2 Understanding the population through
screening and ongoing assessment
Successful alternatives approach migrants as a
highly diverse population with different needs
and motivations. 98 This is well established in
the concept of mixed migration that informs
strategies to manage migrants at the point of
entry. 99 Those currently at risk of detention
worldwide include, inter alia, refugees; asylum
seekers; persons who cannot be returned to
their country of origin due to a recent natural
disaster, violent conflict or lack of cooperation of their own government; individuals
who have been working illegally as a result
of being trafficked into prostitution; tourists
who have overstayed a short-term visitors
visa; stateless persons who are not eligible
for a substantive visa but who are unable to
return to their country of birth; international
students who have breached a condition of
The following key findings are particularly

relevant to understanding the differences
among migrant populations:
Individuals rarely abscond while awaiting
the outcome of a visa application, status
determination or other immigration process,
if in their destination country. 100 As shown in
Section 2.4.1, a majority of migrants want to
remain engaged with authorities in order to
secure the best outcome for their migration
case. This reinforces the conclusions of
previous research that asylum seekers who
reach their destination country are unlikely to
abscond because they have a vested interest
in remaining in the territory and in complying
with the asylum procedure.101 Such a
conclusion is also implicit in the extraordinary
lengths people go to in order to reach their
destination and in the difficulties destination
governments face in achieving deportation
and sustainable repatriation.102
Individuals are better able to remain

in compliance if they can meet their basic
needs while in the community. 103 Individuals
living in stable accommodation appear to be
in a better position to remain in contact with
authorities and handle the complexities of
immigration procedures than those who had
become impoverished or homeless.104 Policies
that restrict access to housing, basic welfare
or health care have not been associated with
increased rates of independent departure or
deterrence outcomes.105 Instead, these policies
have been associated with poorer health, with
13
serious consequences for authorities working

towards case resolution including return.106
However, case management programs that
work with clients to meet their basic needs
have been associated with higher rates of
voluntary or independent departure or other
case resolution.
Individuals are more likely to accept and

comply with a negative decision on their visa
application, status determination or other
immigration process if they believe they have
been through a fair and efficient process;
they have been informed and supported
through that process; and they have explored
all options to remain in the country legally. 107
Community management programs are found
to sustain significant levels of compliance
with a range of populations. For example,
a return preparation program in Belgium
(Box 18) ensures clients review all options
to remain in the country legally to achieve
strong compliance and departure outcomes.
Conversely, a family return pilot project that
was unable to achieve its aims due to an
overwhelming feeling of injustice and lack
of confidence in the immigration process:
families within the project [felt] that they were
poorly, if not unfairly, treated within the asylum
procedure and [were] not therefore willing to
engage in discussion about return, but [were]
rather looking for other ways to remain.108
While the issue of transit continues to
be of concern to many governments, there is
evidence that individuals appear less likely to
abscond in a country of transit if they can
meet their basic needs through legal avenues,
are not at risk of detention or refoulement,
and remain hopeful regarding future
prospects. 109 The findings of one large survey
of 34 countries supported the common sense
conclusion that improving reception conditions
and integration prospects in [transit] states
will directly raise the rate of compliance with
14
asylum procedures.110 Research with migrants

who intended to transit Libya concluded
that the absence of a humane and orderly
framework for handling migration flows in
Libya is no doubt a contributing factor to the
ever increasing numbers of migrants, asylum
seekers and refugees willing to risk their lives
in the Mediterranean to reach the safety of
Europe.111 As noted in Box 14 Hong Kong
achieves a 97% compliance rate with asylum
seekers or torture claimants in the community,
despite the fact those with successful claims
are not offered permanent residency.112 While
secondary movement cannot always be
prevented, screening and assessment can
assist in understanding motivating factors
and facilitating registration with authorities.
However, complete control in all cases is
unrealistic. The pull of onwards travel is
especially compelling for people seeking family
reunification or who have other pressures to
undertake secondary movement. For these
reasons, countries must invest in preventative
mechanisms that address the root causes of
irregular migration and build a stronger international system of burden sharing.
These findings highlight the importance
of understanding the diversity within the
population of refugees, asylum seekers,
stateless persons and irregular migrants
as well as understanding those contexts
that promote good outcomes for a range
of stakeholders. These findings have been
used to develop the Community Assessment and Placement model to prevent unnecessary detention and support case resolution from a community context. Further
evidence for these findings are incorporated
through the report in the relevant sections.
2.5.3 Holistic case management

focused on case resolution
Successful alternatives engage with and
support individuals through the immigration process, often with case managers. Early
engagement by case managers can reduce
unnecessary detention by identifying risks,
vulnerabilities and needs that may impact a
persons capacity to remain engaged with
authorities. It also supports informed immigration decisions by ensuring all relevant information is available to authorities. It further
assists in understanding and navigating the
immigration process and the case resolution options available to them, promoting
trust in the system. Case managers can also
promote coping and wellbeing by making
referrals to interpreters, legal advisors, health
professionals and other services as required.
This in turn helps to promote their compli-
ance with their immigration obligations and/

or any conditions or restrictions while in the
community. They can also assist the individual to achieve timely and fair case resolution and to prepare them for immigration
decisions, including integration or departure
from the country. See also Section 7.1.
Research to date suggests asylum seekers, refugees and migrants

Rarely abscond while awaiting the
outcome of a visa application, status
determination or other immigration
process, if in their intended destination.
Are better able to comply with requirements if they can meet their basic needs
while in the community.
Are more likely to accept and comply

with a negative decision on their visa
application, status determination or other
immigration process if they trust:
They have been through a fair and

efficient process
They have been informed and

supported through that process
They have explored all options to

remain in the country legally
Appear less likely to abscond in a

country they intend to transit if they can
meet their basic needs through legal
avenues, are not at risk of detention
or refoulement and remain hopeful
regarding future prospects.
Further, while secondary movement

cannot always be prevented, screening
and assessment can assist in understanding motivating factors and facilitating registration with authorities.
However, complete control in all
cases is unrealistic. Solutions for such
situations include proactive preventative
mechanisms that address the root causes
of irregular migration and build a stronger
international system of burden sharing.
15
3. Community Assessment
and Placement: Introducing
the Revised CAP model
Figure 1: The Revised CAP model - Community Assessment and Placement
16
The Revised Community and Assessment Model (Revised

CAP model) identifies the principles and processes that prevent
unnecessary detention and support community-based options.
The Revised CAP model, seen in Figure 1, is a practical tool for
governments and other stakeholders to develop effective and
humane systems for governing irregular migration. It is a nonprescriptive framework that assists governments in reviewing
and analysing their current migration governance framework
and in exploring alternatives that work in their context. In the
Revised CAP model, the principles of liberty and of minimum
standards underpin the three processes of decision-making,
placement and case management. The model, while built upon
the IDCs program of research, also reinforces the normative
international standards relating to the detention of asylum
seekers, refugees, stateless persons and irregular migrants.
113
The Revised CAP Model can be used to:

Analyse and assess existing laws, policies
and practices in order to identify gaps,
needs, priorities and goals
Obtain ideas about what is possible and,

using these, develop, expand or improve
alternatives in local contexts
The following sections describe each of the

components of the model in detail and present
descriptive case studies of these principle
and processes in action. These case studies
and break out boxes offer practical examples
of implementation in different contexts.
Facilitate dialogue with officials in different

arms of government, between States and
across stakeholders
Guide the decision making process to

ensure immigration detention is only used
as a last resort
Train officials, practitioners and stakeholders on how to work towards ending

unnecessary detention and how to develop
and implement alternatives
17
4. Liberty: Presumption
against detention
The right to liberty and a presumption against

detention are the first of two principles that
underpin the Revised CAP Model. The right to
liberty is a fundamental human right, enshrined
in all major international and regional human
rights instruments.114 It is guaranteed to all
persons, including refugees, asylum seekers,
migrants and stateless persons, irrespective of
their legal status. This right to liberty of person
imposes a number of specific limitations on
States ability to detain, including the requirement that detention is justified by a legitimate State objective, is in accordance with the
law, and is not arbitrary. Any system seeking
to avoid unnecessary and arbitrary detention
must be based on a presumption of liberty.
18
The research identified the following strategies to protect the right to liberty. These
strategies are strongest when established
in law; however, they can also be stated
in policy or established in practice. These
include laws, policies and practices that:
Establish a presumption of liberty

Provide a mandate to apply alternatives in
the first instance
Only permit detention when alternatives

cannot be applied
Prohibit the detention of vulnerable

individuals
4.1 Establish a presumption of liberty

A presumption of liberty, or a presumption
against detention, is an effective means of
ensuring detention is only used as a measure
of last resort in exceptional circumstances.
A presumption of liberty upholds each individuals right to freedom of movement
and helps to prevent immigration officials
from resorting to confinement when other
options are at their disposal.115 A presumption of liberty is strongest when established
in law or detailed in policy. All laws, policies
and other materials establishing a presumption against detention should be made widely
available in writing to ensure consistent
implementation. Further, in order to be most
effective, governments should undertake
training and guidance on implementation
with enforcement officers and the judiciary.
BOX 1
Countries that operate with a strong presumption of liberty for all persons include Argentina,
Brazil, Costa Rica and Venezuela. In these
countries, national laws strongly espouse
the principle of non-discrimination and do
not distinguish between nationals and nonnationals for the purposes of access to and
enjoyment of fundamental rights. Such
laws provide detention be used only as an
exceptional measure of last resort and/
or where necessary, and provide for alternatives to be used in the first instance.
4.2 Mandate to apply alternatives

in the first instance
A presumption of liberty is strengthened when
alternatives are clearly specified and established in law or policy. Legally prescribed alter-
A PRESUMPTION OF LIBERTY IN LAW
The Argentine Immigration

Law (Law 25.871), enacted
in January 2004, recognises
that migration is a human
right, and extends constitutional and human rights
protections to all persons in
the country irrespective of
their legal status. Article 6
of Law 25.871 also guarantees all persons the right
to non-discrimination, and
access to education, medical
and social services. Immigration detention is limited
in law and practice to rare
instances, and is generally only permissible after
a final order of deportation
has been issued.116 Article
61 of Law 25.871 states that
before deportation, a person

must be given the opportunity to explore all options
to regularise their status,
within a set deadline. Migration decisions are made by
immigration authorities but
are reviewable by a court,
with no detention during this
period. Legal aid is available
throughout the deportation
process.
Deportation and detention are both decisions that
must be ordered by a court,
with detention used only as
a final resort after all other
remedies are exhausted.
Under Regulation 616/2010
accompanying Law 25.871,
ARGENTINA
detention orders can only
be issued as a precautionary measure before a final
immigration decision where
there is a risk of non-compliance with a deportation
order. Article 70 of Regulation 616/2010 provides that
detention orders can only
be issued for a maximum of
45 days to effect deportation where a removal order
has been finalised; within
this period, after the first 15
days of detention, immigration authorities must provide
a detailed report every ten
days to the courts justifying the extended detention
period.
19
natives provide officials with clear options for

people to remain in the community while their
immigration status is being resolved. Several
countries maintain laws and policies that
mandate, or require, alternatives to be considered or applied before a decision to detain is
made (such as in Argentina (Box 1), Austria
and Costa Rica). Others encourage authorities to consider alternatives before using
detention (such as in Canada, Hong Kong,
Indonesia, Ireland and Japan). The effectiveness of such laws in preventing unnecessary
detention relies on good implementation.
A clear example of this mandate can be found
in the European Union (EU). Through transposing of the Returns Directive 117 and the
recast Reception Conditions Directive 118 in
their national legislation, Member States are
required to ensure that detention is used as a
BOX 2
4.3 Only permit detention when

alternatives cannot be applied
Laws or policies that establish a presumption of liberty may do so by allowing the
use of immigration detention as an exceptional measure, only when alternatives
cannot be applied in the individual case.
Such laws can ensure decision-makers and
immigration officials review less restrictive measures for each case and establish
clear reasons why such measures cannot be
applied in the individual case. This ensures
ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION IN LAW
Poland has passed legislation providing for a mandate

to consider alternatives
to immigration detention.
The New Act on Foreigners entered into force on 1
May 2014. It is modelled on
Directive 2008/115/EC of the
European Parliament and of
the Council of 16 December
2008 on common standards
and procedures in Member
States for returning illegally
staying third-country nationals (the Returns Directive).
Article 398 of the New Act
on Foreigners provides for
the Polish Border Guard
authority to apply any one or
more of the following:
20
measure of last resort, only to be applied after

non-custodial alternatives to detention have
been examined. As a result of these Directives,
almost all EU Member States now provide for
alternatives in national legislation (see Box 2
Poland, Croatia and New Zealand as examples).
POLAND, CROATIA AND NEW ZEALAND
Reporting at specified
intervals to the Polish
Border Guard;
Lodging a security
deposit, no lower than
twice the amount of
the minimum wage
stipulated by minimum
wage law;
Surrendering of travel
documents; and
Directed residence at a
location specified by the
authorities.
Croatia nominates several
alternatives to detention
in its national legislation,
which was introduced in
2012. These include the duty

to surrender documents, to
deposit sureties, to reside at
a designated address and to
undertake regular reporting.119 Further, a book of rules
provides additional guidance
to officials regarding implementation.120
Section 315 of New Zealands Immigration Act 2009
outlines specific conditions
that may be applied to a
person who would otherwise
be subject to detention,
including reporting, guarantors and undertaking actions
towards case resolution.
officials must demonstrate the particular

reasons why detention is deemed necessary
for those individuals facing detention.
A presumption of
liberty is strongest
when established in law,
although it can still be
established in policy
or in the practice of
immigration officials
to not detain unless
necessary
Evidence of such consideration may be
required to be submitted when a detention
decision is being made or reviewed in
court. Where it is not articulated in law, a
presumption of liberty can still be established in policy or in the practice of immigration officials to not detain unless necessary,
as seen in Box 1 Argentina and Box 21
BOX 3
Sweden. In several jurisdictions, courts have

ordered authorities to revisit their procedures to ensure they can demonstrate
the reasons for detention and why a more
lenient measure has not been applied.121
4.4 Prohibit the detention of

vulnerable individuals
Additionally, many countries protect the right
to liberty for certain vulnerable individuals.
These States either prohibit the detention
of vulnerable individuals in law or direct
officers to apply alternatives to those individuals. While countries vary in their identification of vulnerability, this can include
unaccompanied children, children travelling with family, pregnant women, the elderly,
persons with mental or physical illnesses,
refugees and asylum seekers, and/or stateless
persons. Examples of such laws and policies
include Box 3 China, Box 7 Hungary, Box
11 Zambia, Box 12 the United States, Box
13 Turkey, Box 14 Hong Kong and Box 18
Belgium. Further information on identifying
vulnerability is provided in Section 6.3.
PROHIBITING THE DETENTION OF VULNERABLE INDIVIDUALS
The Peoples Republic of

Chinas (China) Exit and
Entry Law, which came into
effect on 1 July 2013, aims to
limit the use of immigration
detention for vulnerable individuals. The Exit and Entry
Law excludes certain vulnerable migrants from detention
including minors under 16
years of age, persons with
disabilities, persons with
serious illnesses, pregnant
women, and those over 70
years of age. The Exit and

Entry Law also contains
provisions allowing refugees
and asylum seekers to stay
in China after obtaining an
identification card from public security authorities.
Additionally, the July 2012
revisions to the Procedural
Provisions for the Handling
of Administrative Cases by
Public Security Organs also
excludes other individuals
from detention including:
CHINA
those who voluntarily ask

for inspection by entry-exit
department, pay fines, and
buy tickets to voluntarily
return to their home country;
those who entered through
irregular means and stayed,
received no help from family members or embassies;
survivors of trafficking;
and foreigners married to
Chinese nationals, especially
those with children born in
China.
21
Ensuring the right to

liberty for child migrants
Refugee, asylum seeking and irregular migrant
children are, first and foremost, children.
States are required to consider their best
interests as the primary consideration in all
decisions impacting upon them and to uphold
their rights without discrimination. Indeed,
the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child
(CRC Committee) has concluded:
The detention of a child

because of their or their
parents migration status constitutes a child rights violation
and always contravenes the
principle of the best interests
of the child. In this light, States
should expeditiously and
completely cease the detention
of children on the basis of
their immigration status.122
resort, and the right to not be punished for the

acts of his or her parents. Alternatives should
be applied to the whole family, with detention
only in very exceptional circumstances. 124
Evidence shows that detention can have a
profound and negative impact on the health
and development of young people. Children in
detention are at risk of depression and anxiety
and frequently exhibit symptoms of PostTraumatic Stress Disorder. 1 Detained children
have higher rates of suicide, suicide attempts
and self-harm, mental disorder and developmental problems. Even very short periods of
detention can undermine a childs psychological and physical wellbeing and compromise
their cognitive development. A recent study
has reinforced these concerns, concluding:
Detention is highly distressing and often
traumatic [for children]. On the basis of our
findings, children, regardless of immigration
status, should be protected from detention
and should also be spared forced separation
from their parents.128
Further, the detention of a migrant child to

maintain family unity may violate the principle
of the best interests of the child, the childs
right to be detained only as a measure of last
The IDC supports the Global Campaign to End Immigration Detention

of Children. More details can be found at http://endchilddetention.org
22
The Child Sensitive Community and Assessment Placement Model (CCAP)

The IDCs program of research has identified several mechanisms that States can use to ensure
that the rights of irregular migrant children are protected while awaiting case resolution. These are
laid out in the IDCs Child-Sensitive Community Assessment and Placement Model (CCAP).1 CCAP
provides governments and other stakeholders with further details on how to actualise CAP specifically in the context of children. The core components of CCAP are as follows:
Prevention
Placement and Case Management
This systemic aspect protects children from

detention by establishing in law or policy
that children should not be detained.
Involves an exploration of the migration

options available to the child and their family,
a full best interest determination, and an
assessment of the protection needs of the
child and/or their family.
Screening, Assessment and Referral

Within hours of coming into contact with
a child, authorities must undertake a best
interest assessment and place them in an
appropriate community setting that takes
into account age, gender and cultural
background. This component includes
screening the individual to determine their
age (with a full age determination only
when there are serious doubts as per Box
4), assigning a guardian to unaccompanied or separated children (see Box 6), allocating a caseworker to children who are
travelling with their families, undertaking
an intake assessment and placing the child
and their family into a community setting.
BOX 4
Reviewing and Safeguarding

This step ensures that the rights of children
and their best interests are safeguarded
through regular independent review of any
decisions taken including placement, conditions applied and legal status.
Case Resolution
The realisation of a sustainable migration
solution for the child and their family.
More details on CCAP can be found
in the IDC Publication Captured Childhood.
http://idcoalition.org/ccap
AGE ASSESSMENTS
Where the age of an individual is in dispute, an age

assessment may be required.
The UN Committee on the
Rights of the Child has recommended that age assessments should have regard
for the psychological maturity of the individual, as well
as their physical appearance.
Assessments should be conducted in an objective, safe,
child- and gender-sensitive
manner. Age assessment
can integrate documentary
evidence, interviews and

professional observation
with medical assessments.130
In Sweden and Belgium,
these three methods are
combined. Age assessment
procedures can be contentious, with interviews and
observational technique visual, cognitive, behavioural
and psychological - often
being subjective and dependent upon the expertise
of the assessor, particularly
on culturally-appropriate
markers of age.131 Medical

tests including Magnetic
Resonance Tomography,
bone and dental radiology
and examinations of sexual
maturity have also been criticised for their inaccuracy.132
If age determination assessments do not remove doubts
as to the age of the person,
then they should be given
the benefit of the doubt and
considered a minor.133
23
BOX 5
ENDING IMMIGRATION DETENTION OF CHILDREN
Panama
Introduces a law to prohibit
the immigration detention of
children.
Indonesia
Belgium
Introduces law permitting

the release of children and
other vulnerable individuals
from immigration detention.
Implements alternatives to
detention for children and
families.
2005
2008
2010
South Africa
Finland
Court rules children may

only be detained as a
matter of last resort.
Commits to end the detention

of unaccompanied and
separated children.
Japan
Releases all children from
immigration detention and
establishes a policy to no
longer detain children.
United Kingdom
Announces it will end the
detention of children
24
2011
A SNAPSHOT OF GLOBAL TRENDS
China
Malta
Passes a new law

restricting the
detention of children
under 16 years of age.
Commits to ending child

immigration detention
Turkey
Limits the detention of

minors to exceptional
circumstances
Passes new legislation

prohibiting the detention
of unaccompanied
minors seeking
international protection.
2012
2014
France
2015
The Netherlands
Taiwan
Announces that families

with children who seek
asylum will no longer be
detained at the border,
except in exceptional
situations.
Prohibits the detention

of children under the
age of 12 years old.
Israel
Introduces a new law excluding children
from residence orders (a requirement to
reside at designated detention centres)
and directing authorities to place
unaccompanied minors and other specified
children into community settings.
25
BOX 6
APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN
Unaccompanied children, and

those separated from their
primary caregiver, are particularly vulnerable to abuse
and exploitation and are entitled to special protection.134 A
crucial protection measure is
the appointment of an independent, legal guardian. The
guardians key role is to help
ensure the child is not at any
legal disadvantage in the immigration process, and that
their support and care needs
are being met. In Comment
No. 6, the CRC Committee reinforced the need for
States to appoint a guardian or adviser as soon as an
BOX 7
There are different types of

guardianship models.136 Good
practice examples maintain a
clear distinction between the
role of the guardian and that

of the immigration authorities. In Belgium, guardians
are professional non-government individuals and volunteers, while in Sweden these
are citizens of good standing.
In both countries, guardianship is appointed by an
independent body, this being
the Guardianship Service and
Chief Guardian respectively.
In the Philippines, the Department of Social Welfare and
Development are delegated
as the responsible guardians
to provide shelter, social work
and health care services.
UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN ARE NOT TO BE DETAINED
HUNGARY
employed by the Department

of Child Protection Services,
who is legally responsible for
the overall care, management
and legal representation of
the child.
tions.139 Section 45(1) of the

Hungarian Child Protection
Act requires that children in
care facilities must be provided with food, clothing, health
care, education and housing
suitable for the development
of their physical, mental and
emotional needs.
Section 56 of Hungarys Act

II of 2007 on the Admission
and Rights of Residence of
Third-Country Nationals
establishes that unaccompanied children cannot be
detained for migration reasons.137 Unaccompanied children who come into contact
with authorities, however,
must provide evidence of
their identity (with personal
identification or valid travel
document) and demonstrate
a legal ground for stay in
Hungary. Those who cannot
provide this may be held
for a maximum period of 24
hours while the authorities
conduct identification and
age assessment verification.
Those found to be children
are appointed a guardian
26
unaccompanied or separated
child is identified, and to
maintain such guardianship
arrangements until the child
has either reached the age
of majority or has permanently left the territory. The
guardian should be consulted
and informed regarding all
actions concerning the child,
and should have authority to
be present in all planning and
decision-making processes
involving the child.135
Since May 2011, unaccompanied children seeking asylum

or international protection
fall under the scope of the
countrys general child protection regime and thus enjoy
the same rights as Hungarian
children. They are regarded
primarily as children, and only
secondarily as migrants.138
They are placed in a specific
child protection facility in
Ft supervised by Hungarian
authorities, with services provided by a variety of national
and international organisa-
Non-asylum seeking children

are accommodated in a
child protection facility in
Hdmezvsrhely run by
the Catholic Church under a
contract with the Social and
Child Protection Directorate.
The capacity at this facility
is, however, limited and some
non-asylum seeking children
are placed at other child
protection facilities when
required.140
5. Minimum standards
The second principle in the Revised CAP

model is minimum standards. These
minimum standards underpin all decisionmaking and placement processes in the
Revised CAP model. There are a number
of minimum standards which States must
respect and uphold for all individuals,
regardless of legal status. These minimum
standards help to ensure the proper functioning of migration governance systems
and the effectiveness of alternatives.
Without these minimum standards in place,
alternatives are also less likely to achieve
desired rates of compliance, case resolution and respect for human rights. Individuals are better able to remain in compli-
ance with authorities if they can meet their

basic needs while in the community. They
are also more likely to accept a negative visa
or status decision if they believe they have
been through a fair immigration process;
they have been informed and supported
through the process; and have explored all
options to remain in the country legally.
Minimum standards include:
Respect of fundamental rights

Basic needs
Formal status and documentation
Legal advice and interpretation
Fair and timely case resolution
Regular review of placement decisions
27
5.1 Respect of fundamental rights

It is crucial that States ensure all persons, irrespective of their status, are able to exercise
their fundamental human rights and freedoms.
These rights establish minimum standards of
treatment to ensure each person is treated
with dignity; as such, these rights should be
respected and promoted for every person
within the States jurisdiction.141 These fundamental rights include economic, social and
cultural rights such as access to health, livelihood and education. As outlined above in
Section 4, fundamental rights include the
right to liberty and freedom of movement
and the right to protection from discrimination on any grounds including national
origin or migration status. These latter rights
are particularly important in relation to
State governance of non-citizens. Further,
ensuring fundamental rights are respected
can support migrants to stay engaged with
authorities, minimise secondary movement
and improve the safety and security of
both migrant and local populations. Fundamental rights may be provided and/or
supported through laws, policies or practice.
Ensuring fundamental
rights are respected can
support migrants to stay
engaged with authorities,
minimise secondary
movement and improve
the safety and security
of both migrant and local
populations
Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica and Venezuela
strongly espouse the principle of non-discrimination and do not distinguish between
28
nationals and non-nationals for the purposes

of access to and enjoyment of fundamental
rights. As seen in Box 1, Argentina has established in law that constitutional and human
rights protections extend to all persons in
the country, irrespective of their legal status.
Further, migration is protected as a human
right. The law also guarantees all persons
the right to non-discrimination, and access
to education, medical and social services.
5.2 Basic needs

The ability to meet basic needs is the second
minimum standard that underpins alternatives. It is important that all individuals, regardless of migration status, are
able to meet their basic needs. The ability
to meet basic needs is fundamental to
human life and is protected and reinforced
in various human rights instruments.142
In addition to this mandate, there is evidence
that asylum seekers, refugees and irregular
migrants are better able to comply with
requirements if they are able to meet their
basic needs while in the community.143 Those
migrants living in stable accommodation
appear to be in a better position to remain in
contact with authorities than those who have
become impoverished or homeless.144 Policies
that restrict access to housing, basic welfare
or health care amongst irregular migrants
have not been associated with increased
rates of independent departure or deterrence
outcomes.145 Instead, these policies have been
associated with poorer health, with serious
consequences for authorities working towards
case resolution including return.146 However,
case management programs that work with
clients to meet their basic needs have been
associated with higher rates of independent
departure or other case resolution.147 It must
be noted that confinement in immigration
detention is not an appropriate way to provide
for basic needs, nor does it ensure their fundamental rights are respected, nor does it ensure
their fundamental rights are respected.
In some cases, individuals are able to provide
for their own needs through legal work. A
number of countries provide asylum seekers
with the right to work while their status is
being determined, as seen in Box 8 Spain,
Box 9 Chile and Box 21 Sweden. In the EU, the
Reception Directives requires Member States
to provide asylum seekers with an adequate
standard of living which guarantees their
subsistence and protects their physical and
BOX 8
mental health.148 Member States are also

required to give applicants access to the
labour market no later than nine months from
the date of lodging a protection application.149
Migrants are better able to

comply with requirements
if they are able to access
and meet their basic needs
while in the community
ENSURING ASYLUM SEEKERS CAN MEET THEIR BASIC NEEDS
In Spain, asylum seekers who

enter the refugee determination process can be
housed in an open reception
centre if they cannot afford
private accommodation.150
These centres are operated
by the government or by
non-government organisations. The total reception
capacity in Spain is about
850 places, with priority
given to vulnerable individuals. Asylum seekers cannot
choose which area within
Spain they will be located.
The centres are responsible
for the reception, promotion
and integration of asylum
seekers and refugees.151
Residents are free to come
and go from the centres as
they like. As an example, one
centre provides bedrooms
shared by 3-4 single adults,
while families have their own
room with a small bathroom
attached. There are catered
meals in a dining hall, public

lounge areas, library, shared
computer and Internet access and a shared laundry.
Residents receive 50 per
month cash allowance for
their own use including public transport. Twice a year
residents are given money
for clothes.
Residents are assigned a
social worker who provides
information and advice on
their situation, works to develop an individual pathway
and assists them in accessing education, health care
and other social systems
of Spain. All residents are
expected to attend Spanish
language classes, cultural
orientation, and employment preparation programs.
Recreational activities such
as sports, visits to the local library, exhibitions and
movies are supported by an
activities officer. Psychologi-
SPAIN
cal services and specialised

services including legal
aid are available for eligible residents. The centres
also undertake advocacy
activities in the local Spanish
community.152 Residents are
issued a card that identifies
them as asylum seekers and
facilitates their access to
medical care.
Asylum seekers can be
housed in reception centres
for six months. If they are
still awaiting a decision on
their refugee application at
that time, they are supported to find independent
housing and employment.
At this point, they are given
the right to work. Vulnerable
individuals and families may
apply to extend their stay
in the centre for an extra
six months if needed. The
program has been praised
by UNHCR for its high standards.153
29
However, those excluded from the labour

market may need financial aid or direct
provision of goods. Non-government organisations often play an important role in providing
for basic needs, with or without government funding. In doing so, they create the
conditions to enable release from detention.
Support to meet basic needs can be seen in
Box 7 Hungary, Box 8 Spain, Box 9 Chile, Box
10 Canada, Box 11 Zambia, Box 14 Hong Kong,
Box 16 Australia, Box 17 the Netherlands,
Box 18 Belgium, Box 19 Hungary, Germany
and the United States, Box 20 Europe, Box
21 Sweden and Box 24 the United States.
Simply providing legal entitlements to healthcare, employment or education is often not
BOX 9
FORMAL STATUS AND DOCUMENTATION
In Chile asylum seekers are

issued with a renewable
temporary stay permit,
valid for eight months, which
provides the holder with an
entitlement to work. A comprehensive social assistance
scheme ensures asylum
seekers and their families
are able to meet their basic
needs, with access to food,
housing, furniture and
transportation. An asylum
seeker is entitled to full support for three months; this
then decreases to 75% after
three months, 50% after six
months, and ends after 12
months. However, this may
be extended in special circumstances.155
Afghan refugees in Iran are
issued with Amayesh cards
that provide them with legal
30
enough to ensure that people can access

these in practice. For example, frontline health
providers may not be aware of their obligations to provide treatment to migrant groups
and the cost of accessing health services
can be prohibitive. Further, it may be difficult
to obtain a work permit and/or employment. Work is particularly hard to secure with
temporary status with short-term employment rights or when limited to working in
set industries. An absence of documentation and/or previous school records can
result in education providers denying access.
In some countries, children are only able to
access informal learning centres rather than
government schools, preventing them from
receiving an officially recognised qualification.
status in the country. These

cards serve as valid identity
cards and permit the holder
to access health care and
education. Amayesh cards
are currently issued for a
year and must be renewed
annually, at a cost of approximately USD $3 per card.
In Romania, tolerated status,
and an accompanying tolerated document are issued
by the Romanian General
Inspectorate to persons who
cannot leave the Romanian
territory but who would
not otherwise have a legal
basis to remain.156 Tolerated
status is granted for an initial
period of six months, renewable for further six-month
periods until the reasons
for toleration cease to exist.
At that time, the individual
VARIOUS COUNTRIES
is required to depart the
country. Individuals holding a tolerated document
have the right to work, are
required to report regularly to a territorial unit of
the General Inspectorate,
and must notify authorities of any changes to their
place of residence. They are
also required to reside in a
particular geographical area
and obtain approval to travel
outside of this area.157
In Turkey, stateless persons
who have been identified
are to be issued a Stateless
Person Identification Document. This grants the right to
legal residence and access to
health, education and legal
services.
5.3 Formal status and documentation

Formal status and documentation of that
status are the third minimum standard to
underpin successful alternatives. Individuals who are waiting for a decision on their
migration status are particularly vulnerable to detention if they do not have formal
interim status allowing them to remain in the
country pending case resolution. Documentation should be issued that provides evidence
of the individuals identity and permission to
be in the country. Such documentation papers
are important because they ensure individuals
who have already been screened by authorities are not picked up by another branch
of government and re-processed unnecessarily. Such documentation can also be used
by social support organisations to identify
those individuals who are eligible for their
services. It can also act as a de facto reporting
mechanism if it has to be reissued after a set
period of time or in particular circumstances.
If an appropriate visa or status has not been
developed, such documentation may state
that a deportation order will not be effected
until a particular date or outcome is achieved
(see Box 14 Hong Kong). States can build on
or modify existing processes for issuing visas
to develop such interim statuses.154 Although
this documentation is most often issued by the
governing State, asylum seekers and refugees
in some countries rely on the identification
documents issued by UNHCR to defend their
presence in the territory and guard themselves from being detained unnecessarily.
Documentation underpins
successful alternatives to
detention and can serve
multiple purposes for
various stakeholders
Box 9 sets out different examples of interim

legal status and documentation that can be
conferred upon individuals awaiting a final
immigration outcome or who have been
found with no legal basis to remain but are
unable to depart the country due to administrative or other reasons. In most examples,
the granting of legal status and issuance
of documentation is accompanied by work
rights and access to social assistance. See
also Box 8 Spain, Box 13 Turkey, Box 14 Hong
Kong, Box 21 Sweden, and Box 26 Australia,
Mexico, Philippines and South Korea.
5.4 Legal advice and interpretation

Legal advice and interpretation are further
minimum standards that ensure individuals are
properly advised about their migration and/
or detention situation and the legal processes
surrounding their case. These ensure the right
to due process is protected. Individuals are
in a better position to comply with authorities if they understand their legal position, the
judicial and bureaucratic procedures in which
they are engaged, and the potential futures
that await them.158 Lawyers and appropriately trained migration agents are best able
to provide accurate and reliable advice to
an individual on these matters. As one study
concluded, The single most important institutional feature that fostered trust was access to
early, reliable legal advice and assistance.159
Individuals are in a better

position to comply
with authorities if they
understand their legal
position, the judicial and
bureaucratic procedures in
which they are engaged,
and the potential futures
that await them.
31
Caseworkers who are knowledgeable about

the migration system can reinforce the information provided by legal counsel and authorities to create a consistent message and provide
practical support to complete immigration
processes. In addition, the use of legal counsel
is seen to benefit the immigration system by
creating a fairer system160 and increasing efficiency and consequently reducing costs overall
by ensuring decision-makers are not required
to delay proceedings or spend time clarifying
claims made by applicants without representation.161 Legal aid programs for migrants are seen
in numerous countries including Japan, Jordan,
Thailand, Egypt, the United States and Yemen.
The majority of these were administered by
non-government organisations to provide legal
assistance and counselling to asylum seekers in
their refugee status determination programs,
to asylum seekers and irregular migrants in
employment matters, or to assist persons
who are detained or at risk of detention.
Interpretation and translation are also extremely
important to ensure vital information is effectively communicated.162 In addition to translated
written materials, qualified interpreters improve
communication with lawyers, caseworkers
and immigration officials. When interpreters
cannot be on site, telephone-based interpretation services may be the next best option.163
5.5 Fair and timely case resolution

Another important minimum standard is the
fair and timely resolution of migration status.
Fair and timely case resolution is a fundamental requirement for an effective and sound
migration management system. As demonstrated earlier in this Handbook, individuals
are more likely to accept and comply with
a negative decision on their visa application, status determination or other immigration process if they believe their application
has been assessed in a fair and just manner.
If an individual believes the system is unfair,
they will be much less likely to accept negative
32
outcomes (such as a visa refusal), to comply

with conditions and to remain engaged with
authorities. Where processes are protracted,
poorly managed and lack transparency, individuals will be at risk of becoming lost in
the system and stuck in situations of uncertainty. This encourages secondary movement
or going underground as a strategy to
continue progressing with their lives.
Elements that impact on the fairness of the case
resolution system include difficulty obtaining
information on immigration processes, inconsistent or contradictory information or
decisions, weak mechanisms for appealing
negative decisions, and a lack of transparency
of the decision-making process (such as reasons
for negative decisions). A prolonged and inefficient case resolution process can also impact
a persons belief in the system and willingness
to accept final outcomes, whether it be independent or voluntary departure or deportation.
Further, as noted in Section 8.3 Detention as a
last resort, with review, immigration detention
is usually experienced as a severe injustice due
to being incarcerated despite believing themselves innocent of any crime.164 This feeling of
injustice can saturate their experience of the
immigration procedure and lead them to believe
that their case has not been heard fairly. This
can make it difficult to work towards return for
those found to have no legal right to remain
in the country. Deportation can be extremely
difficult to achieve if the person does not want
to comply, even with detained populations.165
5.6 Regular review of

placement decisions
The final minimum standard is regular review
of placement decisions in order to reassess the
necessity and proportionality of any conditions or restrictions imposed and to take into
account any changes in an individuals circumstances. Alternatives that restrict liberty are
subject to human rights standards, including
periodic review by an independent body.166
As applicable, individuals subject to alternatives need to have timely access to effective

complaints mechanisms as well as remedies.167
Regular reviews also give authorities a chance
to reassess a persons willingness to remain
engaged with authorities on the progress of
their migration case and to comply with any
conditions imposed. As seen in Box 10 Canada,
reducing conditions to reward and reinforce
compliance is an effective tool in maintaining
engagement. Regular reviews also enable
authorities to identify changes in circumstances
that affect placement decisions, such as new
vulnerability or risk factors, and identify any
new or enduring barriers to case resolution.168
Further, the right to judicial review of any
decision to detain is key for preventing arbitrary
detention.169 It is particularly important that
systems of detention include regular, independent review of the detention decision and
of potential avenues for release. The ability to
challenge ones detention in an impartial court
is a fundamental mechanism to safeguard individual freedom against arbitrary detention.
pendent review, whether by the courts or an

independent administrative body.171 Review
by a court or independent administrative
body ensures independent and systemic
oversight. Such transparency ensures that
the reasons for taking the decision to detain
have been well established by the decision-maker and that the person concerned
has had a genuine opportunity to present
relevant evidence and raise concerns.
Avenues for release from detention may
include bail or bond schemes (described in
Bail, bond, surety or guarantee) or release at
the end of a maximum period of detention.
Release may also result from issues of vulnerability and duty of care, such as when someone
develops serious mental health issues that
are compacted due to their ongoing confinement or, in the case of stateless persons, to limit
periods of detention when waiting for a resolution of their situation.172 Developing pathways
into community options ensures detention is
not the result of a lack of options for release.
See Box 25 Canada and Box 26 Australia,
Mexico, the Philippines and South Korea.
Regular reviews enable

authorities to identify
changes in circumstances
that affect placement
decisions, such as new
vulnerability or risk factors,
and identify any new or
enduring barriers to case
resolution.
One of the strongest mechanisms to achieve
this is to establish in law that any decision to
detain requires judicial approval, as seen in
Argentina (Box 1) and Germany.170 Decisions
regarding confinement should be regulated
through automatic, prompt and regular inde-
33
BOX 10
REGULAR REVIEW
The Toronto Bail Program in

Canada provides an example
of the importance of regular
review of conditions. The
program has been operating since 1996 as a specialist
agency funded by the government.173 The organisation
identifies eligible detainees
through a screening and assessment process and then
supports their application
for release on bail. Clients
include migrants who are
facing departure after completing a prison sentence,
refused refugee claimants,
and asylum seekers detained
due to issues of credibility or
flight risk. The program relies
on strong case management,
34
CANADA AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

support, information and
advice, reporting and supervision. Those who enter the
program are initially placed
in intensive supervision, with
regular reporting. These
conditions are reviewed and
reduced after a period of
compliance, building trust
between case managers and
participants. Case managers also identify and address
issues such as substance
abuse, drug addiction or
mental health needs, as
these personal issues often
impact compliance. The
program costs CA$10-12 per
person per day compared
with CA$179 for detention.174
In the 2009-2010 financial
year, it maintained a 96.35%

retention rate;175 in the 20132014 year, it was 94.31%.176
Member States of the European Union are required
to undertake timely judicial
review of detention decisions, by way of Article 15 (2)
of the Return Directive and
Article 9 (3) of the revised
Reception Conditions Directive.177 In addition, Article 15
(3) of the Return Directive
and Article 9 (5) of the Reception Conditions Directive
establish that detention has
to be reviewed at reasonable
intervals of time either by
application from the thirdcountry national or ex officio.
6. Identification and decision-making
Screening and assessment are crucial for

ensuring effective migration governance.
Individual screening and assessment are the
only ways to ensure detention meets the
tests of necessity and proportionality and is
not arbitrary. Indeed, immigration authorities are increasingly using screening and
assessment to screen out those who should
not be detained and to make informed
placement and management decisions.
Through individual screening and assessment, governments can identify and evaluate
risk, needs, vulnerabilities and strengths to
make an informed case-by-case decision on
how to place, manage and support an individual while their immigration status is being
resolved. Screening and assessment can
occur at all stages in the migration process,
including prior to making a placement

decision and at periodic intervals during
such placement. Ongoing periodic reassessment is crucial to review and adjust
placement decisions and to ensure any conditions on their placement are still necessary.
Screening and Assessment

are different yet complementary processes that
allow authorities to adjust
placement decisions and
to ensure any conditions
on their placement are still
necessary
35
Screening is the process to obtain basic

information and individual attributes, such
as bio-data. Information collected during
screening includes, inter alia, an individuals identity, nationality, legal status, health
status, security indicators, vulnerability indicators and compliance history. This information can be used to determine the individuals
migration status and to make initial referral,
management and placement decisions.
Assessment involves a more in-depth evaluation of an individuals circumstances, vulnerabilities and/or risk factors. An assessment
may be conducted to evaluate needs identified
during screening (e.g. trafficking survivor or
stateless) or it may involve an in-depth examination of the appropriate course of action
to take for a particular person. An assessment may occur at the same time and by
the same person conducting the screening,
or it may happen at a later date and on a
repeat basis by caseworkers, immigration
officers and/or members of the judiciary.
Assessments are used to make or adjust
management and placement decisions.
Screening and assessment of the individual case can include several factors.
The sections below will describe four
key areas that are considered central to
effective case management with migrants.
As seen in Figure 2, these areas are:
Legal obligations
Figure 2: Understanding the population through

individual assessment
Legal
Obligations
Vulnerability
Community
Context
Identity,
Health &
Security
Checks
Individual
Case Factors
6.1 Legal obligations

It is of primary importance that detention is
legally applied in each case to protect individuals from arbitrary or wrongful detention. A
process that screens individuals against international human rights laws and standards and
national laws and policies regarding detention
can reduce the likelihood of unlawful detention
and the costly litigation and public criticism
that can entail. An assessment of legal obligations in each individual case can establish
the lawfulness of detention and identify any
legal requirements that must be fulfilled.
Identity, health and security checks

Vulnerability
Individual case factors
Community context
36
Many countries have laws that outline

mandatory actions in particular migration
cases, including that certain vulnerable individuals, such as children, cannot be detained.
These will vary according to national law
and, in some cases, regional agreements.
States must be extremely careful that
the right to be protected from arbitrary
detention will be upheld should any form
of mandatory detention be considered.178
Some of the obligations imposed that

might be assessed at this stage include
those that prevent the detention of
particular people, such as unaccompanied children (Box 7 Hungary). Laws may
also prohibit the detention of citizens and
residents with legal status or other vulnerable individuals (as seen in Section 4.4.)
Law or policy may require that alternatives
to detention are applied or shown to be inadequate in an individual case before detention
can be applied, as seen in Section 4.
BOX 11
Finally, there may be laws or policies

outlining the circumstances in which
people who are already in detention
must be released. These can include:
When a duty of care cannot be met within

a detention environment
When a maximum period of detention has

been reached
When a visa is issued or right to stay

achieved
SCREENING AND ASSESSMENT IN A MIXED MIGRATION CONTEXT
Between 2013 and 2014, the

government of Zambia collaborated with the IOM, UNHCR and the United Nations
Childrens Fund to develop
the capacity of national actors to respond to the needs
of vulnerable migrants in a
mixed migratory context. A
technical taskforce involving
several government ministries, police and civil society
groups was formed to support the programs goals.
A National Referral Mechanism (NRM) 179 and associated
Guidelines were developed
to effectively identify vulnerable migrants and refer them
to appropriate authorities
and services.180 According to the NRM, vulnerable
migrants include refugees,
asylum seekers, rejected
asylum seekers, victims
of trafficking (including
presumed and potential
trafficked persons), unaccompanied and separated
children, stranded migrants

and stateless migrants.
The NRM process starts with
an initial interview and registration of migrants by frontline officers.181 The purpose
of this initial interview is to
assess immediate protection/assistance needs and
to collect and register basic
bio-data.
The migrant is then referred
to the relevant authority
for a more comprehensive
assessment and status
determination. The relevant
authority may include the
police (for victims of trafficking), the social welfare
ministry (for unaccompanied
or separated minors), the
Office of the Commissioner
for Refugees (for refugees,
asylum seekers and refused
asylum seekers) and the
immigration authorities (for
stranded migrants or stateless persons).
ZAMBIA
After this comprehensive

assessment, migrants are
referred to relevant service
providers to address short,
medium and long-term
needs and to appropriate
authorities to facilitate case
resolution.
Following an initial piloting
stage, the Guidelines have
been rolled out across Zambia. More than 200 front-line
officers have received training on the Guidelines and
NRM.182 Initial monitoring
and assessment has shown
a strengthened capacity of
front-line officers and service providers to: (a) identify
various vulnerable migrants
using the Profiling Form; (b)
refer migrants to relevant authorities and service providers; (c) provide appropriate
protective services; and (d)
coordinate and collaborate
with stakeholders to improve
protective services for vulnerable migrants in Zambia.
37
Incorporating legal obligations into a

screening and assessment process ensures
that decisions regarding detention are
lawful, protecting both individuals and
the State from the harmful consequences
of unlawful or arbitrary detention.
6.2 Health, identity and security checks

A central component of any screening and
assessment process is having standard
government health, identity and security
checks. These three assessments are vital for
managing and regulating the entry and exit of
people from a territory. A number of countries
have introduced streamlined identity, health
and security checks to minimise the use or
period of detention during these processes.
6.2.1 Health checks
A medical assessment allows the government to check for any health issues, including
communicable diseases such as tuberculosis.183 Health checks enable the government to identify and treat key health issues
and to protect public health. They can also be
used to uphold the health of detained populations by ensuring contagious diseases are
not introduced to detention centres. Checks
can also ensure the screening out or release
of seriously ill people from detention. Health
checks are sometimes used to limit any unfair
burden of national health care systems;
however this must be exercised with caution
to ensure that individuals who are seriously ill
do not face inhumane suffering should they
be denied medical attention or face deportation without the prospect of appropriate
medical care on return.184 Sweden offers health
checks to asylum seekers on arrival but this
is only mandatory if there are visible signs
of illness that may impact public health.185
38
6.2.2 Identity checks

Identity checks establish the key elements
of a persons identity such as their name,
country of origin, country of citizenship and
date of birth. This is sometimes easily established when identity and travel documents,
such as passports, concur with all other
evidence. However, establishing identity
can prove difficult if the person has been
forced to flee a country of persecution
without original documentation or if they
are attempting to enter under an assumed
name.186 This research cannot speak to these
issues; however, the inability to provide documentation establishing identity should not
be a reason to detain, as detention in these
circumstances would arguably violate the
norms of necessity and proportionality.
The inability to provide

documentation
establishing identity
should not be a reason
to detain
Further, evidence shows asylum seekers are
predisposed to cooperate with immigration procedures while their status is being
determined, and therefore detention cannot
be considered necessary on the basis of a
presumption of absconding.187 Indeed, many
countries house asylum seekers in open
accommodation centres while undertaking
identity confirmation including Sweden,
Finland and Germany, while Canada directs its
officials to release individuals who are cooperating with efforts to establish their identity
but whose identity cannot be established.188
6.2.3 Security checks

A security check establishes that the individual concerned does not pose a threat to
national security or public order. A history of
participating in terrorist networks or human
rights abuses may, among other things,
preclude entry into the territory if it is considered an issue of national security or public
order. Countries that include security concerns
in risk assessments include Australia, the
United Kingdom, the United States (Box 12)
BOX 12
and Hong Kong (Box 14) Such checks should

be undertaken as soon as possible and in
a timely manner to ensure detention is not
prolonged unnecessarily. Individuals who
are cooperating with efforts to undertake
a security check should not be forced to
endure prolonged detention. Individuals
who are considered a security risk through
this process must have an opportunity to
understand the basis of that assessment and
have the chance to provide further informa-
SCREENING AND ASSESSMENT
In March 2013, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deployed a new

Risk Classification Assessment instrument nationally.
This is the first automated
system of individualised
assessment used to assist
placement determinations.
The Risk Classification Assessment tool was developed in response to criticism
over the increasing numbers
of people being unnecessarily detained or detained
for prolonged periods. Such
detention was taking place
without uniform, individualised assessment or determination that their detention
was proportionate or justified, including whether they
were a danger to society, or
a flight risk.189
The Risk Classification Assessment tool is used during
the detainee intake process
to determine (a) whether a
person should be released
or detained, (b) if released,
what levels of supervision

should be placed on the individual, and (c) if detained,
the individuals custody
classification level. The tool
guides ICE officers through
a multi-staged process of
decision-making, starting
with a legal assessment of
whether the individual is
subject to mandatory detention, or whether detention
would otherwise be required.
In respect to the latter, the
Risk Classification Assessment tool uses objective
classification scales and
mathematically weighted
factors/algorithms to score
the risk that an individual
poses to the community.
Persons who do not pose
a risk to the community
and who are eligible to be
released are then assessed
using additional factors that
score the risk of absconding. The results determine
the type of alternative best
suited to the individual.
THE UNITED STATES

The Risk Classification
Assessment tool requires
ICE officers to screen for
the existence of family
ties, immigration history
including compliance with
previous immigration decisions, as well as medical,
mental health and other
vulnerability triggers at the
outset. It includes prompting
questions for a number of
vulnerability triggers including disability, advanced age,
pregnancy, nursing mothers,
sole caretaking responsibilities, mental health issues,
and victimisation, including
aliens who may be eligible
for relief under the Violence
against Women Act, survivors of crime, or survivors
of human trafficking.190 It is
designed to take eight minutes to complete. It remains
to be seen how effective the
tool is in a context where
conditions are applied rigorously and there is a historical
predisposition to detain.191
39
tion to defend their claims before an independent body, with legal advice. The assessment of risk associated with migrants who
have completed a prison sentence is included
as an issue of character in Section 6.4.5.
Figure 3: Assessing vulnerability
Elderly and children
Age
particularly unaccompanied
and separated minors.
6.3 Vulnerability
An assessment of vulnerability can ensure
management strategies are sensitive to the
particular needs of vulnerable individuals
and incorporate appropriate support. Such
an assessment can identify those individuals who require additional support to meet
their basic needs or undertake daily activities, as well as identifying those who require
extra assistance to understand and negotiate
migration procedures and to meet the conditions of their release. Particularly vulnerable individuals may have fewer personal
resources to cope with the detention environment and may be at higher risk of harm.192 In
some countries it has been established that
certain vulnerable individuals should never
be detained, as discussed in Section 4.4 .
Vulnerability assessments identify the ways in
which an individuals position in society places
them in an unequal relationship with others.
Work on this concept focuses on the contexts
that create vulnerability by framing assessments around what people may be vulnerable
to.193 However, most vulnerability assessments
currently in use identify certain categories of
people as being vulnerable based on particular
personal characteristics.194 For the purposes
of this report we will discuss four areas which
have traditionally been used to identify vulnerable individuals, as seen in Figure 3. These are:
Women at risk, nursing
Gender /
Diversity
mothers and pregnant women

and those at risk due to sexual
orientation or gender identity
Physical and mental ill health
Health
or disability and psychosocial

and welfare factors.
Refugees, asylum seekers,
Protection
needs
stateless persons, trafcked

persons, survivors of torture
and trauma and of sexual and
gender-based violence.
6.3.1 Age
Vulnerability assessments should identify
those individuals whose age places them
in a position of vulnerability. Economic,
political and personal power in society is
often dependent on age. Elderly people who
are frail or no longer able to work are often
dependent on others to provide for their basic
needs.195 Policies in Canada 196 and China both
require that detention is avoided or used
as a measure of last resort for the elderly.
Similarly, children mostly rely on adults to
provide for their basic needs, and should never
be detained, as discussed in Section 4.4 .
Age
Gender / Diversity
Health
Protection needs
40
6.3.2 Gender / Diversity

Gender, gender identity, sexual orientation
and visible markers of diversity can create
vulnerability in some contexts. Women at
risk, nursing mothers and pregnant women
are likely to be more vulnerable in a detention

setting. Sexual orientation and gender identity
can also create vulnerability, particularly in a
detention context.197 Identifying these issues
during a vulnerability assessment can assist in
ensuring management choices include a safe
living environment, as seen in Box 18 Belgium.
UNHCR Detention Guideline 9 offers further
guidance on this in relation to asylum seekers.
6.3.3 Health
Those with serious issues impacting on
their health and wellbeing may be vulnerable during a migration status determination process. Those with physical or mental
health issues that compromise their independence may need assistance with daily care and
BOX 13
with obtaining medical attention. Such assistance can meet duty of care obligations while
also ensuring a persons ill health does not
interfere with their ability to meet the requirements of their placement in the community.
For instance, someone who is suffering from
a chronic illness may not be physically able
to maintain regular reporting requirements
despite a willingness to remain in contact with
authorities.198 Additional psychosocial factors
that impact wellbeing and create vulnerability include a serious breakdown in family
relationships, those experiencing violence
or abuse or children with serious behavioural problems.199 Countries that screen
and assess for health vulnerabilities include
Hong Kong (Box 14) and Australia (Box 16).
PROHIBITING THE DETENTION OF VULNERABLE INDIVIDUALS
For the first time, Turkey

has introduced a comprehensive framework for the
governance of migration.
The Law on Foreigners and
International Protection
(LFIP) was ratified by the
Turkish Parliament on 4 April
2014. It introduces important
protections and procedural
safeguards in administrative
decision-making for persons
seeking international protection. It also excludes certain
vulnerable individuals from
detention and introduces
alternatives into law for the
first time.
Under the LFIP, detention
is prohibited for unaccompanied minors seeking
international protection, 202
victims of human traffick-
ing, international protection

status holders, international
protection applicants (except in set circumstances)
and stateless individuals.
The LFIP also exempts a
number of vulnerable individuals from deportation
orders and, therefore, detention. This includes individuals
who are at risk of torture/
ill-treatment if expelled; are
unable to travel due to poor
health, age or pregnancy; require medical treatment that
cannot be obtained in the
country of origin or return;
or are victims of serious psychological, physical or sexual
violence, until treatment is
completed.
For such vulnerable individuals, humanitarian residence
TURKEY
permits are issued (with

specific permits for victims
of human trafficking). These
permits can also be issued
to individuals for whom a
deportation order has been
issued but who cannot be
deported (e.g. because their
country of origin refuses to
accept their return). Permit
holders may be required to
reside at designated reception and accommodation
centres and to report to
authorities at specified periods. The permit includes a
foreigner identification number, which is used to access
health care, education and
legal services. Asylum seekers may live with freedom
of movement if they reside
in their allocated satellite
city.203
41
An assessment of health and wellbeing is

particularly important in detention cases, as
many detainees have limited access to appropriate medical care especially for serious or
chronic conditions. In addition, detention
may be a core contributing factor to the
onset and/or deterioration of some health
conditions, as discussed in Section 1.3.3.
Anticipated length of time until case

resolution
Intended destination
Family and community ties
Character including compliance to date
Belief in the process
6.4.1 Stage of migration process
6.3.4 Protection needs

International human rights agreements
highlight the responsibility of States to protect
vulnerable individuals on their territory. Among
others, these agreements protect children,
asylum seekers and refugees, survivors of
torture, victims of human trafficking, women
and stateless persons. 200 Regional agreements in Latin America and Africa offer additional protection to migrants who have been
forced to leave their country for legitimate
reasons. 201 In addition, those who have experienced torture, violence or trauma may be more
vulnerable to the harmful effects of detention
and at higher risk of re-traumatisation by being
placed in a prison-like setting. Vulnerability
assessments will identify those individuals
with protection needs and ensure they access
asylum or other protection processes and are
placed in an appropriate environment while
their status is assessed. See also UNHCRs
Detention Guidelines for applicable criteria and
standards relating to asylum seekers as well as
Box 8 Spain, Box 13 Turkey and Box 21 Sweden.
6.4 Individual case factors

There are a range of factors relating to the
individual and their situation that may be
relevant when considering what supports
or extra conditions might be needed in
order to manage them appropriately in a
community setting. Some of the key areas
to incorporate in this assessment include:
Stage of migration process
42
It is important to understand what stage an

individual has reached in the migration process
in order to place them in an appropriate
setting. People who are still awaiting a primary
decision on their visa application are in very
different circumstances to those who have
been refused a visa at all levels and have no
further legal avenues to remain in the country.
One area of consensus is that asylum seekers
and irregular migrants rarely abscond while
awaiting the outcome of a visa application,
status determination or other lawful process,
if in their destination country. Statistics from
the United States Department of Justice
show that over 85% of asylum seekers who
were living independently in the community
without restrictions on their freedom of
movement appeared for their hearings with
an Immigration Judge, without any extra
conditions being imposed. 204 Such results
indicate monitoring or other conditions may
not be necessary for many people who are
still engaged in assessment procedures.
It is important to note that this factor does
not determine compliance alone, as several
countries have successful programs working
with people in a community setting who are
facing return or deportation, as seen in Box
10 Canada, Box 16 Australia, Box 17 the Netherlands, Box 18 Belgium and Box 21 Sweden.
However, these programs take the stage of
the migration process into account and make
use of additional supports and conditions
to assist these individuals to work towards
independent departure whenever possible.
6.4.2 Anticipated length of time

until case resolution
The anticipated length of time until a migration
process is complete or until deportation
can be achieved is also an important factor
when considering alternatives, as seen in
Box 1 Argentina, Box 10 Canada and Box 14
Hong Kong. Detention cannot be justified
when it is clear that a visa decision or deportation will not be achievable in a reasonable amount of time, given that the likelihood of psychological harm escalates
the longer someone is detained. 205
Certain migrants
are at greater risk of
unnecessary, prolonged
or repeated detention
when they should instead
be placed in community
alternatives
Certain migrants are at greater risk of unnecessary, prolonged or repeated detention
when they should instead be placed in
community alternatives, including: stateless
persons; migrants whose countries of origin
or domicile are unable or unwilling to issue
travel documentation; migrants facing deportation to a country which is in turmoil due
to war, violent conflict or natural disaster;
and migrants who cannot be returned
due to a serious medical condition. 206
6.4.3 Intended destination
if they are in their destination country and
awaiting the outcome of a visa application, status determination or other legal
process. It stands to reason that absconding
is unlikely while there is a real prospect of
gaining legal status in a preferred destination, as remaining engaged in the process
ensures the best chance of obtaining a

visa or other legal grounds to remain.
This factor is not related to whether the
host country itself is categorised as a transit
or destination country. Instead, it is more
effective to establish whether that country
is the intended destination of each individual. For instance, one study in the United
States assessed compliance amongst a group
of asylum seekers released from detention.
It found that those individuals who had
said Canada was their intended destination were least likely to appear at their immigration hearings. 207 The categorisation of
the United States as a destination country
was not of consequence to those individuals who were intent on reaching Canada.
6.4.4 Family and community ties
Many people are driven by their commitment to their family and this can shape
migration journeys in particular ways. Families
with young children are generally considered to be less likely to abscond, especially when engaged in social systems such
as schooling, 208 as are those individuals with
family in the community who provide an extra
source of support and point of contact. 209
Those who have left family behind may risk
working unlawfully in order to send remittances to loved ones struggling overseas.
Despite these concerns, many families
comply with difficult restrictions for long
periods in the hope that they will eventually be reunited in a safe country. 210
Ties to the local community are also important
when assessing the individual case. 211 Local
community ties increase the likelihood that the
person will remain in the local area or in regular
contact with their networks. Factors used to
assess these ties include whether the person
has close family or relatives, strong social
networks including membership in a religious
organisation, a stable address, employ-
43
ment, an ongoing course of study or training

and ownership of property or business.
Length of time living in the community
may also be an indicator in this respect.
Notwithstanding these existing ties, effective
ties can be established quickly for new
arrivals who do not have existing connections but who join community or religious
organisations that provide support and/
or case management on release.
Family or community ties are often
assessed as part of a bond or supervision program, as discussed in Section
8.2.3. See also Box 14 Hong Kong, Box 24
the United States and Box 25 Canada.
6.4.5 Character including compliance to date
As in the criminal justice setting, many
countries rely on evidence of a persons
character, including their previous compliance with authorities, when considering the
most appropriate management option. Past
behaviour can be a good indicator of future
choices and character assessments can help
in establishing reasonable expectations.
Irregular migration status

in and of itself does not
indicate a likelihood of
absconding
For instance, someone who has a history of
cooperating with authorities may be reasonably expected to continue to behave in a trustworthy manner until evidence to the contrary
arises. Evidence of previous cooperation with
authorities may include complying with authorities while completing a community service or
prison sentence. Individuals who have served
a sentence for a crime can be supported to
44
reach case resolution in the community and

should not be automatically excluded from
community placement. 212 Countries that make
use of such assessments are able to identify
those individuals with a history of non-compliance and introduce more stringent conditions to mitigate risk of absconding, such
as those outlined in Section 8.2 Conditions
or limited restrictions in the community.
It should be noted that irregular migration
status in and of itself does not indicate a
likelihood of absconding. In addition, the
use of fraudulent documents when fleeing
persecution or other serious harm should
not be considered an issue of character.
Character assessments including previous
compliance with conditions of release or
departure are factors used to assess flight risk
in, inter alia, Australia Box 16, Canada Box 25,
Hong Kong Box 14, South Africa, the United
Kingdom and the United States Box 24.
6.4.6 Trust in the process
Evidence from the IDCs program of research
shows that asylum seekers, refugees and
migrants are more likely to accept and comply
with a negative decision on their visa application, status determination or other immigration
process if they trust they have been through
a fair process; they have been informed and
supported through that process; and they
have explored all options to remain in the
country legally. 213 In contrast, those individuals
who believe their case has never been heard
properly or who have felt that the process
has been unfair are more likely to appeal a
negative decision, find another avenue to
remain in the country, or undertake secondary
movement. 214 An assessment of an individuals belief in the process will help identify
those who may require additional supports
to achieve a sustainable case resolution.
Full and timely legal advice and case management throughout the process are key mechanisms to support this outcome. However,
some people will not have faith in the bureaucratic process they have been through, such
as if they know of a similar case that has
received a different outcome 215 or if they are
facing serious threats to life or liberty on
return that fall outside protection mechanisms. 216 In these cases, it is particularly
important that caseworkers and lawyers
recognise these concerns, by exploring all
options to remain in the country legally. If no
further options remain, it may be necessary
to explore alternative solutions, such as
removal to a third country, to a different
BOX 14
region of their country of origin or provision

of more substantial repatriation support that
may assist the person to overcome their
disbelief at a negative decision and avoid
the trauma and force involved in deportation. For more information on support while
working towards removal, see Section 7.2.
6.5 Community context

The final element of screening and assessment is to identify and assess what options
are available in the community context to
support individuals. Contextual factors, which
are often outside the control of the individual,
may have a significant impact on their ability
IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUALS WHO DO NOT NEED TO BE DETAINED
Authorities in Hong Kong

SAR undertake screening
and assessment of irregular
migrants when considering
detention. 217 Detention policy
states that [i]n determining whether a person should
be released or detained, the
Director/Secretary will take
into consideration all the
relevant circumstances of
the case, including:
Whether the persons

removal is going to
be possible within a
reasonable time;
Whether that person

concerned constitutes a
threat / security risk to
the community;
Whether there is any

risk of that persons
absconding and/or (re)
offending;
Whether that persons

identity is resolved or
satisfied to be genuine;
Whether that person has

close connection or fixed
abode in Hong Kong; and
Whether there are other

circumstances in favour
of release.218
After a short period of
detention, most vulnerable
individuals including asylum
seekers and torture claimants219 are released on their
own recognisance. This may
include conditions of selfsurety and minimal reporting
requirements. Asylum seekers and torture claimants are
issued with recognisance
papers documenting their
status in the community. A
government-funded project
run by a non-government
HONG KONG
organisation arranges housing in the community and

provides food, clothing and
medicine. Using a case management approach, workers
assess each case on intake
and develop an appropriate
program of response, in line
with the resources available.
Vulnerable clients, such as
unaccompanied minors, are
given priority and extra support as able. The program
costs HK$109 per person per
day and has a compliance
rate of 97%. 220 Caseworkers
are not responsible for compliance matters, although
known breaches must be reported to authorities. Other
non-government organisations in Hong Kong provide
pro bono legal advice and
support services, which
strengthen this community
context.
45
to maintain their commitments with authorities

and to stay engaged with the case resolution
process. Community context can be assessed
at a systemic level, to identify existing infrastructure and mechanisms that may be
engaged, as well as at an individual level,
to make case level decisions about support
needs and placement options. For instance,
this can include ensuring that housing,
nutrition and other minimum standards
are going to be met. If not, then authorities
may need to arrange additional supports.
Governments can invest

in the community context
to strengthen support
structures and mitigate
concerns
Assessing the community context assists decision-makers in deciding on the best placement
options available for an individual. It enables
the individual being screened and assessed
to be placed into the most appropriate and
effective alternative to meet their needs and
rights and to allow them to stay engaged with
immigration processing. This does not need
to be labour intensive: successful assessment
includes processes to identify the options
46
available, and a referral process to subsequently place them in that measure. The key
is to streamline such processes with clear
identification and referral policies, practical
tools, information and multi-stakeholder
collaboration, as seen in Box 11 Zambia.
For governments interested in developing or
expanding community options, it is important
to assess at a systemic level what mechanisms
are already available in the community that
could be used to support and manage individuals outside of detention even if this is not
the current primary purpose of those mechanisms. For example, the expansion of national
child protection programs to include unaccompanied children, such as in Hungary (Box 7).
7. Case management
The majority of successful alternatives identified during this research rely on case
management to work towards case resolution, while maintaining high levels of compliance with conditions and restrictions while
in the community and improved health and
wellbeing. Case management centres on
understanding and responding to the unique
needs and challenges of individuals and their
context. Case management is designed to
empower individuals to resolve issues independently and link with additional supports
when needed. Case management relies on
identifying all the needs and strengths of
the individual; addressing those needs and
building upon the strengths as able with
available resources; and building resilience
in the individual to deal with the range of
outcomes before them. 221 Case resolution, in

comparison, focuses solely on the outcome
of the migration case. This responsibility sits
with immigration authorities. However, case
management can contribute to timely case
resolution by identifying barriers to migration
outcomes and working on shared solutions.
Case resolution relies on a wide range of
visa, residency and departure options.
7.1 Case management and support

Case management is a comprehensive
and systematic service delivery approach
designed to ensure support for, and a
coordinated response to, the health and
wellbeing of people with complex needs. 222
Case management centres on under-
47
standing and responding to the capacities, needs and challenges of individuals and
their context, including personal resources,
vulnerability, protection and risk factors.
Case managers can

contribute to timely case
resolution by identifying
legal, practical and
personal barriers to likely
outcomes and working
on shared solutions.
Case managers form working relationships with individuals and families in order
to empower them, enhance their wellbeing
and problem-solving capacities, resolve
outstanding issues, provide information on
how to obtain services and resources in their
communities, and work towards the protection of people who are not in a position
to do so themselves. Case managers are
generally social workers, psychologists or
other human services professionals. 223
Case management is described below in more
detail in the context of migration governance. Practical examples are found in Box 7
Hungary, Box 8 Spain, Box 10 Canada, Box 11
Zambia, Box 14 Hong Kong, Box 15 Two Case
Studies, Box 16 Australia, Box 17 the Netherlands, Box 18 Belgium and Box 21 Sweden.
7.1.1 Case management with migrants
Applied in the context of migration, case
management is a strategy for supporting
and managing refugees, asylum seekers,
stateless persons and irregular migrants in
the community or in detention, while they are
working towards achieving case resolution. 224
The case manager role differs to that of an
immigration officer, bureaucrat or guard. Case
managers do not make decisions on peoples
48
immigration cases or undertake compliance enforcement. Rather, the case manager

forms an essential link between the individual, authorities and the community. Case
managers can be particularly important for:
Promoting informed decision making

by both the government decision-maker
and individual in question. Case managers
can ensure case-by-case, initial and
ongoing assessments of the risks, vulnerabilities and needs of an individual that
may impact on their capacity to remain
engaged with the authorities and comply
with any conditions or restrictions. In
providing such early and ongoing intervention, case managers can help reduce
instances of unnecessary immigration
detention and ensure placement decisions,
including any conditions or restrictions,
are continually re-evaluated.
Case managers can also facilitate

an individuals timely access to all
relevant information, options, rights
and responsibilities. They can help
ensure that individuals have an understanding of their immigration status,
legal and administrative processes, and
the options available to them in their
country of origin or another country.
The more transparent the process, the
more likely a person is to feel that all
claims have been heard and considered,
and to understand what their options
are. This helps to promote an individuals trust in the system, and belief that
they have been through a fair process.
Promoting timely and fair case

resolution. Case management can
assist in achieving faster and more
sustainable immigration decisions,
building confidence in the determination process and reducing unmeritorious
appeals. This in turn can improve final
immigration outcomes, be that integration
for individuals granted status, or voluntary
or independent departure for refused
individuals. For example, with a consistent,

trusting relationship between case
manager and individual, the individual
may disclose critical case information that
authorities may not yet be aware of. With
client consent and transparent communication for the purpose of informationgathering, case managers can work with
the individual, lawyer and immigration
authorities to ensure this is included as
early as possible, to try and prevent the
need for case review later. In addition,
case management assists with preparing
clients and establishing realistic expectations on immigration decisions, including
exploring independent departure options
if refused.
Promoting coping and wellbeing by

facilitating access to community services
and support networks. Where a person
with an identified vulnerability (such as
a health concern or torture experience)
is supported during status determination, better outcomes for the individual,
community and government are achieved
regardless of the immigration outcome.
For example, if a person is granted
refugee status or a visa, the support
received could mean that they are better
placed to make a meaningful contribution to society. Alternatively, the person
may be in a better position to return
home and resettle if their case is refused.
Strategies used by case managers in
working with individuals facing removal
include exploring legal options to remain,
third country options, relocation to
another area within the country of origin if
safe to do so, and repatriation assistance.
Case managers also have the flexibility
to respond to barriers to return. This
may include stabilising health conditions,
obtaining travel documents and/or
helping to establish contact with family,
friends or support organisations in the
country of return.
7.1.2 The case management process

Screening, assessment, case planning, intervention and ongoing review are the key
steps in the case management process.
This process is visualised in Figure 4
and described in more detail below.
Figure 4: The case management process
Process
1.
Screening
5.
Case
Closure
Outcomes
2.
Assessment
Informed decision making

Timely and fair case resolution
Improved coping and wellbeing
Avoid unnecessary and wrongful
detention
4.
Intervention
Regu
3.
Case
Planning
la r R e vie
1. Screening
It is recommended that screening should
take place as early as possible, at the
time of irregular arrival, detection in
the community with irregular status, or
lodging of an asylum or protection claim.
Where an indication of vulnerability or
risk is present, the individual should be
referred for comprehensive assessment.
2. Comprehensive assessment
Following an indication of risk or vulnerability
during screening, assessment provides a basis
for further decision making. Through consideration of all systems and factors impacting
on the individual, a case manager can identify
and address issues regarding basic needs and
49
protection, whilst also considering systemic

and policy issues including the governments
need to manage a persons immigration status.
The case manager will engage with the client
and all key stakeholders, including immigration authorities, health professionals, legal
counsellors and family members to understand the clients vulnerabilities, strengths and
risks and what kind of support the client may
need to ensure wellbeing and timely case resolution. This may lead to a recommendation
about appropriate management responses.
and client, individuals are supported to

explore all possible immigration outcomes
from the time of their case being opened.
Regular and ongoing review
As work and relationships develop, the
case manager will continuously monitor the
situation so any emerging needs or change
in situation is identified and responded to
accordingly, working towards a case outcome.
5. Case closure
3. Case planning
Understanding the needs and priorities of
the individual, and the individuals understanding of their situation, may demonstrate
what action is needed to assist an expeditious case resolution. It may be legal assistance
to lodge a thorough refugee claim. It may be
counselling to deal with experiences of torture
or trauma. Information gathered throughout
the assessment process is therefore considered and analysed, goals set, prioritised and
action plans put in place. The case manager
and individual together develop a detailed
case plan, outlining necessary steps to reach
goals, suggested timeframes, and persons
responsible. Consideration and planning
for practical necessities such as housing,
health care, livelihood, social support needs,
reporting requirements and logistics is critical.
4. Intervention
The agreed case plan is implemented, and
should ensure communication, education,
advocacy and facilitation of appropriate
service involvement, assisting individuals to
maintain a link to immigration authorities. Full
engagement with the individual and all key
stakeholders is critical in resolving immigration cases and supporting vulnerable individuals: facilitating regular case conferences
can be a productive intervention. Using the
ongoing relationship between case manager
50
The case is closed when the individual

departs the country or is granted the right
to remain. In both instances, referral to
another service provider for ongoing assistance should be considered, if required.
7.1.3 Foundations of effective
case management
Case management builds on the foundations
of:
Early intervention
Face-to-face, one-on-one contact
Regular assessment and review
Confidentiality and information
management
Consulting key stakeholders

Trust, building rapport, consistent relationships and information provision
Explore all available options to empower

individuals to make decisions
Clear roles and expectations

Resources and options for individuals as
needed
7.1.4 Implementing case management
Case management is implemented in a
number of ways, ranging from triage systems
designed to deal with large numbers to
intensive, individual casework with complex
cases. Many migrants will be able to work to
case resolution independently without the

need for additional support. However, individuals with high level needs or complex circumstances may require more intensive case
management. Caseloads will vary depending
on assessed need and complexity. Reassessments are undertaken by case managers
at critical points, such as decisions on the
migration or asylum case, at a final refusal and
BOX 15
prior to decisions to detain or remove. Case

managers may provide training and advice
to enforcement and compliance units, and/
or maintain oversight of individual health and
wellbeing within these programs. Several
countries have introduced national case
management programs after first piloting
the approach at a small scale, including
Australia (Box 16) and Belgium (Box 18).
CASE MANAGEMENT IN THE MIGRATION CONTEXT
TWO CASE STUDIES
Case study 1: Case management with families pending removal

Cecilia is a mother with sons
aged seven and 16.
Cecilia is a mother with sons
aged seven and 16. 225 She
came to Belgium from Brazil
without documents to join her
sister. After five years in Belgium, Cecilia was detained and
sent back to Brazil. However, a
month later she made her way
back to Belgium. Cecilia was
refused legal residential status
and she and her children were
placed in the open family units

described in Box 18, pending their removal. Cecilia was
initially assessed as a risk to
abscond, as she was adamant
on staying in Belgium.
Cecilias case manager sought
legal advice to ensure all
her options to remain in the
country legally had been fully
explored. The legal advisor
suggested Cecilia return to
Brazil and apply for a visa in
order to come and work legally

in Belgium. The case manager
ensured Cecilia knew how to
apply for a visa from Brazil
and engaged the International
Organization for Migration to
work with Cecilia to explore
possibilities for the familys
return.
Through this process, Cecilia
finally agreed to return independently to Brazil with her
family.
Case study 2: Case management and case resolution

Ravi came to Australia as
a student, later lodging
an application for asylum
based on fear of reprisal for
his involvement in student
politics in India. 226 Ravi was
found not to have protection
concerns and, following a
failed appeal, was required to
depart Australia. Ravi refused
to depart, citing his ongoing
fear, and threatened suicide
should he be forced to return.
Ravis case manager explored
his fears and expectations

around the right to remain in
Australia. Whilst Ravi did hold
some fears related to his safety, he also had an overwhelming sense of shame of facing
his family without savings.
Ravis case manager sought
independent legal advice to review Ravis case and outline his
realistic chances of remaining
in Australia. The case manager
also negotiated an additional
three months, with work rights,
while Ravi explored these
options. He was also referred

to a counsellor for additional
support.
During this time, Ravi managed
to save some money so that he
would not be destitute on arrival. On receiving legal advice
that he had no further grounds
to remain, the case manager
explored his return options
with him. Ravi consequently
departed Australia independently.
51
7.2 Case resolution

Case resolution is not the same as case
management, although they often overlap.
Case resolution is focused on finding a
permanent or temporary migration outcome.
While this responsibility ultimately sits with
immigration authorities, case managers can
contribute to timely case resolution by identifying legal, practical and personal barriers
to likely outcomes and working on shared
solutions. Case resolution can draw from a
range of solutions including various visa and
departure options. Examples of case resolution options are provided below and in
Box 15 Case studies, Box 19 Options for
those who cannot be deported and Box
20 Protecting victims of trafficking. 227
The following sections focus in particular on
the challenges of resolving complex cases
and on preparing migrants for departure.
Some migration cases require extra work to
achieve resolution due to complex migration
BOX 16
Case resolution for complex cases

Preparing for departure
7.2.1 Case resolution for complex cases
In complex cases, individuals are less able
to focus on resolving their migration status
due to multiple and complex issues that
demand their attention and engage their time
INTENSIVE CASE RESOLUTION WITH COMPLEX CASES
In Australia, vulnerable migrants with complex needs

are referred to the Status
Resolution Support Services
(SRSS). As of October 2014,
the SRSS replaced four
previous support programs.
The SRSS is designed to
provide extra support to
individuals as they engage
with immigration authorities.
The guiding principles of the
SRSS are to involve clients in
identifying and addressing
their own needs and building
on their own strengths. The
three broad areas of service
provision are orientation,
52
issues, the case becoming stalled due to a

bureaucratic issue (such as when there is
no standard policy to deal with people who
are stateless), severe client vulnerability or
due to challenges in achieving departure.
Intensive case resolution work can be used
as a mechanism to assist in resolving an individuals migration status while they remain
in the community. Allocating extra resources
to complex cases identified through the
screening and assessment process can assist in
resolving a case while an individual remains in
a community setting. The intensive case resolution strategies included in this report are:
accommodation and case

management. 228
This service is built on an
original pilot program with
a group of clients with highlevel welfare needs and an
average of more than six
years in Australia. Despite
these barriers, the pilot
achieved significant outcomes. Of 918 people assisted between March 2006 and
January 2009, 560 people
(61%) had a final outcome.
Of this group, 370 people
(66%) received a temporary
or permanent visa to remain,
114 people (20%) departed
AUSTRALIA
independently, 37 people
(7%) absconded, 33 people
(6%) were removed by the
Department and six people
(1%) died. 229 This equates to
a 93% compliance rate and a
60% rate of independent departure amongst refused applicants. The program cost a
minimum of AU$38 per day
compared with a minimum of
AU$125 for detention. 230 The
government has found that:
[d]rawing on appropriate
services and focusing on addressing barriers is proving
a successful mix for achieving sustainable immigration
outcomes.231
and energy. Complex cases vary widely but

many involve issues of vulnerability (such
as serious illness or trauma), an inability to
meet basic needs (resulting in homelessness and destitution), risk of self-harm or
suicidal ideation, or difficulties in departing
the country. Providing extra resources to
work with individuals to address the variety of
issues affecting their migration situation can
be an effective way of dealing with barriers to
case resolution, as seen in Box 16 Australia.
7.2.2 Preparing for departure
For individuals found to have no legal basis
to remain, return preparation and counselling programs have been an effective
mechanism to support and facilitate independent or voluntary departure without the
need for detention and deportation. Return
preparation and counselling programs can be
effective if a strong case management model
allows workers to respond to the whole of the
persons context and to ensure that the individual has explored all options to remain in
the country legally (see Box 18 Belgium).
States are increasingly choosing to incorporate voluntary return into migration governance systems. There are a number of programs
designed to support a person to prepare for
voluntary or independent departure while they
remain in the community, including the Assisted
Voluntary Return and Reintegration (AVRR)
programs run by the International Organization for Migration. 232 These programs include
pre-departure assistance, return/transit assistance and post-return support for reception
and reintegration. This practical support can
include organising and paying for flights,
making contact with families or friends, and
planning for life on return. Such programs
are extremely useful for migrants who wish
to return but find themselves stranded for
reasons such as a lack of finances or lack travel
documents. Assisted return programs appear
to be more effective at achieving independent
departure when integrated with case management throughout the migration assessment
process, rather than being introduced after

a period allowing for independent departure
has elapsed without any support (see Box
17 the Netherlands and Box 21 Sweden).
In addition to providing practical support, such
programs can encourage individuals to exit
the country independently by highlighting the
benefits of legal return, as opposed to having
to contend with the stigma of deportation and
exclusion from future return to the country.
The effectiveness of such return counselling
is likely to depend on the individuals situation
and their trust in their caseworkers. One US
study, described in Box 24 found that departure
planning particularly increased appearance
and independent departure for undocumented
migrants and criminal non-citizens, as these
groups wanted to be able to legally re-enter the
country in the future. In addition to other mechanisms, the program supported independent
departure by obtaining travel documents,
buying tickets, explaining how to confirm
departure with the authorities and retrieve any
bond deposit after departure. 234 Similarly, the
Failed Refugee Project in Ontario, Canada
provided return counselling and financial
support to asylum seekers who had exhausted
all avenues of appeal. This project successfully effected removals without resorting to
detention in 60% of cases within the 30 day
period for departure. 235 As seen in the Case
Study 2 (Box 15), securing short term work
rights can be integral to enabling independent
return. Contrasted against this, prolonged
detention or unnecessary detention pending
removal has been found in some contexts to
be counterproductive to government objectives of achieving compliance with immigration
outcomes, including returns (see Section 1.3.2).
Refused asylum seekers may have powerful
reasons to fear return which are not allayed
by standard reintegration support packages,
and particular care must be taken when
working with this group. 236 Individual assessment and case management can assist
authorities in determining the best pathway
to return for these different populations.
53
Resolving migration status

The resolution of a migration case takes many forms.
Case resolution ranges from regularisation, protection
and other humanitarian interventions, other permanent
migration solutions (such as family reunification, marriage),
medium term options (such as study or temporary
work), short-term provisional visas, departure to a third
country, departure with a plan for lawful re-entry, return
to a different area of the country of citizenship, assisted
voluntary return and other departure options.
BOX 17
MAKING PLANS FOR LIFE AFTER RETURN
In the Netherlands, an NGOrun programme assists persons who have been issued
with a deportation order or
have overstayed their visa
to return to their country of
origin. 233 The program, which
runs for a minimum of 13
weeks, is based on the premise that people should be
empowered to prepare for
departure from the Netherlands, and that the coercive
environment of detention is
not conducive to overcoming real or perceived barriers
to return.
Coaches, or caseworkers,
build trust with individuals
54
and help them to identify

and overcome obstacles
to return. The program
focuses on empowerment
and restoring the independence of participants by
building up the skills and
confidence necessary for
return. The program includes
business and skills training,
some assistance to meet
basic needs, and referrals
to psychosocial services
where required. Participants
develop a plan to establish a
new business upon returning
to their country of origin and
receive financial support to
implement this upon return.
THE NETHERLANDS
The program is mainly
government funded. It costs
6,000 EUR to assist an
individual to return (including all associated costs) the
equivalent of 30 days in
immigration detention. The
program acts as an alternative to detention because
the government undertakes
that participants will not be
detained and, in some cases,
people are released from detention to participate in the
program. As of September
2014, over half the people
enrolled in the program had
returned to their countries
BOX 18
PREPARING FAMILIES FOR INDEPENDENT DEPARTURE
Belgium 237 has open housing

facilities for families who
have to leave the country,
who apply for asylum at the
border, or who fall under the
Dublin Regulations. 238 These
housing facilities are located
in close proximity to public
transportation, schools and
shops. Usually, each family is
allocated its own unit. Buildings are not locked and there
are no security staff. The
families receive a weekly allowance, food vouchers and
non-food items. Children can
attend schools in the local
area and families have access to physical and mental
health services if required.
Each family is assigned a
coach employed by the
Belgian Immigration Department. These coaches are,

in effect, case managers
responsible for providing
holistic, tailored support
through intensive casework.
They review the familys file,
explore all options to remain
in the country legally, seek
legal advice if required, make
practical arrangements for
the journey and work with
the family to accept and
prepare for return. Case
managers cultivate rapport
and encourage families to
share their full story in order
to realistically consider all
future options.
Since the project began, the
majority of families (70%
to 80%) have remained in
BELGIUM
immigration processes. 239
There has been a high rate
of voluntary return and low
rates of absconding: from
October 2008 to August
2011, 217 families (including
396 children) were housed
at the units. 240 Of this group,
88 families returned to their
countries of origin or were
removed to a third country
under the Dublin Regulations. Almost all of these
(80) departed independently, with only eight forced
returns. Of the remaining 129
families, 69 were released
and 48 absconded (usually
within five days of arrival). 241
The average length of stay
was 24 days. 242
55
FACILITATING LAWFUL STATUS
THE UNITED STATES
The United States established the T Non-Immigrant Status (the T Visa) for non-citizens who are survivors of severe forms of human trafficking.243 It extends protection to
such individuals, and allows them to remain in the country to assist in an investigation or
prosecution of human trafficking. The T Visa begins as a temporary four-year visa. After
three years of holding T non-immigrant status, the non-citizen can apply for permanent
residency. T Visa holders are given work rights and are eligible for the same federallyfunded benefits and services as refugees. Further, T Visa holders have some access to
family reunification, in order to protect family members at risk of reprisals by traffickers. 244
MOROCCO
Morocco hosts between 10,000 to 20,000 undocumented migrants from Sub-Saharan

African nations. In September 2013, King Muhammad VI announced that some undocumented migrants would be regularised and given permission to work in the country
legally. 248 This limited scheme resulted in approximately 18,000 one-year residency
permits being granted to undocumented migrants in the country. 249
ARGENTINA
Argentina has pursued a strong regularisation and legalisation strategy for managing
its substantial population of immigrants, most of whom originate from countries in the
region.245 It provides residence to any citizen of a Mercado Comun del Sur country
(which includes all South American states) who does not have a criminal record. It has
also legislated to provide temporary residence permits for people who are not be able
to return to their country of origin because of a natural or environmental disaster.246
Further, between 2007 and 2010, Argentina implemented the Patria Grande regularisation programme. This granted temporary or permanent residence to 560,131 people, thus
contributing to a decrease in unemployment and poverty.247 Legal migration has been
seen to benefit the economy and so irregular migration has largely been redirected into
the formal market through regularisation.
56
SWEDEN
Sweden conducted a regularisation program between November 2005 and March 2006,
targeting individuals who had been issued with final removal orders. This was initiated in
part due to heightened media attention over children from undocumented families who
were experiencing severe psychological problems caused by their irregular status. A total
of 31,120 applications for residence permits were processed, of which 17,406 were granted.
These were mostly issued to families with small children and migrants who had been issued
removal orders but could not be returned to their country. Factors such as length of stay in
Sweden, situation in their country of origin, criminal history and social and health circumstances were taken into consideration. 251
BELGIUM
Belgium launched a program in 2009 to regularise migrants who had been residing in the
country for at least five years. Applications were received between 15 September and 15
December 2009. Applicants had to demonstrate integration into Belgian society (through
language skills, attendance at literary courses or having children who were enrolled in
Belgian schools). The regularisation program also offered permanent regularisation to
asylum seekers whose applications had been pending for more than three years, and who
could produce an employment contract and regional labour card. Through this program,
11,016 regularisation applications were granted. 250
57
BOX 19
OPTIONS FOR THOSE WHO CANNOT BE DEPORTED
See also Box 26.

Hungary Under Act II of
2007, a residence permit can
be issued on humanitarian
grounds to persons who have
been granted exile status,
or tolerated stay.252 Residence
permits are issued for one
year and may be renewed
for further one-year periods.
Those with exile status are
entitled to social assistance
including accommodation
or rental support, medical
services, education assistance, and financial support
to depart the country when
possible.253
Germany - Unreturnable
migrants in Germany are
granted tolerated status, and
BOX 20
PROTECTING VICTIMS OF TRAFFICKING
A reflection period is a
period of time in which the
trafficked persons can consider their options in a safe
environment, without risk
of being removed from the
country.254 Granting a reflection period to survivors of
trafficking is recognised as
a best practice and measure
that not only helps to protect
the rights of trafficked survivors, but also encourages
survivors to cooperate with
authorities in the prosecution of traffickers. 255
58
issued with a document called

a Duldung. This certifies that
the individual is obliged to
leave the territory, but cannot
do so at present. A Duldung
can be granted for a variety of
reasons, including administrative obstacles preventing travel, such as a lack of
passport, or conflict in the
country of origin. After a year,
Duldung holders have limited
work rights and receive basic
social assistance, at 40% below unemployment benefits
for German nationals. They
are required to live in designated areas (to distribute the
social welfare load across the
Lnder), and require permission to travel.
The Council of Europe Convention on Action against

Trafficking in Human Beings
includes a mandatory 30 day
reflection period, irrespective of whether the person
is cooperating with the
prosecuting authorities. It
also provides for renewable
residence permits, valid for
at least six months. Under
Article 8 of the Directive,
residence permits may be issued if the person(a) is necessary for the investigation
of the trafficking offence or
VARIOUS COUNTRIES
In the United States, individuals from certain countries that
have experienced devastating
natural disasters, civil war or
other conditions that temporarily prevent their citizens
from returning safely, may
be able to obtain Temporary
Protected Status (TPS). A
TPS provides the holder with
temporary permission to
remain in the US, and also
provides temporary work
authorisation. Once granted
TPS, an individual cannot be
detained and is not removable
during the designated period.
In order to qualify for TPS, an
individual must prove that s/
he is a national of a current
TPS designated country and
has been in the US since a
specified date.
EUROPE
judicial proceedings, (b) has
shown a clear intention to
cooperate, (c) has severed all
relations with the traffickers;
and (d) would pose no risk
to public order, policy or security. Holders of residence
permits should be able to
access standards of living
capable of subsistence, access to emergency medical
treatment, translation and
interpreting services, and if
provided for by national law,
psychological services and
free legal aid.
8. Placement Options
There are various placement options available

to a State in supporting and managing an individual, pending case resolution. Placement
in the community without conditions or
with liberty is the preferred option in the
majority of cases. Placement in the community
with conditions is used as necessary and
proportionate after individual screening
and assessment has identified concerns.
Finally, immigration detention may be used
as a measure of last resort in exceptional
circumstances, provided the standards of
necessity, reasonableness and proportionality have been met in the individual case.
8.1 Community without conditions

If screening and assessment demonstrate that there are no legitimate grounds
for detention, then liberty is the first and
preferred placement option. Placement in
the community without conditions or restrictions upholds an individuals right to liberty
and freedom of movement. Such placement
is underpinned and supported by the
minimum standards described in Section 5.
Open accommodation centres and reception
centres are one example of such placement
options. Such centres may be dormi-
59
tory-style living with mess hall kitchens

and communal facilities or a more independent style of living in self-contained
flats with self-catering. Residents can
come and go as they like, but may need to
meet with immigration to progress their
migration case. Such institutional models
often provide space on-site for relevant
services such as legal advice or counselling.
Some countries tend not to use the institutional or cluster housing models but
instead disperse individuals throughout
the local community. This may be in
community or religious group housing,
in NGO-run shelters, with friends or
family or in private rental properties.
Many countries operate specialist housing
for vulnerable individuals such as trafficked
persons, people with physical or mental
illness, and single mothers. A number of
countries place unaccompanied minors into
the mainstream child protection system.
Foster homes or orphanages (such as used

with children who are citizens)
Shelters for destitute, irregular migrants

Homeless shelters or transitional housing
for the homeless
Centres for migrants preparing to depart

the country
8.1.2 Minimum supports and requirements
As discussed in Section 5, minimum standards
underpin these placement options. The
provision of minimum standards looks different
country to country. In some countries all
basic needs are met through the institutional setting, while in others basic needs are
provided by NGOs with or without government
funding. A number of countries allow work
rights for asylum seekers and other migrants
awaiting a decision in their case. This reduces
the economic burden on governments and
increases the ability of the individual to selfsustain and cope during the process, in turn
improving integration (if approved) or reintegration and return with dignity (if refused).
8.1.1 Accommodation options

Despite the importance of developing a
holistic approach to alternatives, there is
often particular interest and concern about
where people will live if they remain in the
community. Accommodation can include:
Private accommodation
Living with immediate family, friends or
relatives
Living with members of the host

community
Government-funded housing
Private housing funded by charities
Open reception centres for asylum seekers
Open centres for recognised refugees
Open refugee camps
Shelters run as part of humanitarian aid
Shelters for unaccompanied children or
separated children
60
For many placed in the community, there

will be no need for conditions or restrictions. However most individuals in the
community may be required to undertake
a number of minimal requirements to
ensure they remain active in the system
and achieve case resolution, including to:
Appear at appointments, hearings or

interviews
Undertake acts to assist case resolution

Respect visa or residency status conditions
Such requirements are differentiated from
conditions or restrictions, as the latter are
more onerous and impact on a persons right
to liberty and freedom of movement. It is
important to note, however, that minimal
requirements may become conditions or
restrictions, or applied as such, depending
on the individual case. For example, in some
countries individuals who fail to appear at
immigration appointments or to undertake

certain acts to assist in achieving case resolution may be automatically deemed to not
be in compliance with their immigration obligations and subject to more onerous conditions. Meanwhile, requiring an individual to
participate in high frequency meetings with
their caseworker could amount to a condition
or restriction if unnecessary and disproportionate to the individuals circumstances.
Individuals may also be required to present

further evidence in support of their migration
claims by a certain date, such as to produce
documents or identify witnesses. They may
also be required to take steps in preparation for return, such as applying for a
passport or other travel document or
purchasing tickets to leave the country, as
seen in Box 16 Australia, Box 17 the Netherlands, Box 18 Belgium and Box 21 Sweden.
Appear at appointments, hearings or

interviews
Respect visa or residency status requirements
When placed in the community, an individual

may be required to appear at set appointments, hearings or official interviews with
caseworkers or immigration authorities
regarding their visa application or migration
status. This assists in progressing the migration
matter and working towards case resolution.
Attendance at such appointments, hearings
or interviews can also be used as an opportunity to conduct a follow-up assessment of
an individuals placement and whether additional supports are required to manage him
or her in the community. 256 They can also be
used to re-evaluate the conditions of release in
the community should a negative decision on
a visa application or other status be received.
See Box 10 Canada, Box 14 Hong Kong, Box 16
Australia, and Box 21 Sweden for examples.
Individuals may also be obliged to respect

the requirements imposed on them by the
short-term visa or other temporary status
issued. These can sometimes place limitations on a persons participation in the structures of society, such as limitations on access
to social welfare benefits, public healthcare or
employment. However, there is no evidence
that such limitations encourage case resolution or compliance. Instead, as described in
Sections 2.4.1 and 5.2, the ability to meet basic
needs contributes to case resolution from
community settings. Another requirement
may be that the visa holder is not permitted
to leave the country without permission.
Undertake acts to achieve case resolution

An individual may be required to undertake
acts to assist in achieving case resolution.
As seen in Box 1 Argentina, individuals may
be required to explore all options to regularise their status within a set deadline.
Similarly in Brazil, the first measure of
response to an immigration infraction is to
order an individual to leave the country,
regularise his or her status within a certain
period of time and/or to pay a fine. 257
61
BOX 21
RECEPTION IN THE COMMUNITY
In Sweden, asylum seekers

are taken to an open reception centre where they are
registered and screened
for health or other support
needs. They are registered
on arrival and issued with a
plastic photo identity card.
This is used by immigration to track the case and
used by the asylum seeker
to access services in the
community. 258 A caseworker
explains the Refugee Status
Determination process and
their rights and entitlements
in Sweden.
After several weeks, asylum
seekers are transferred to a
regional area and housed in
flats and apartments close to
a Swedish Migration Board
reception office. Asylum
seekers can live independently if they can pay their
own rent. Asylum seekers
are provided with a daily
allowance of up to SEK71
(approximately USD11) for
single adults (less for adults
sharing accommodation,
and children). Emergency
62
medical and dental procedures are provided at low

cost, about SEK50 (approximately USD8). Like Swedish
children, asylum-seeking
children are entitled to free
medical coverage. Asylum
seekers can request the
assistance of a lawyer, who
is appointed and paid for
by the Swedish Migration
Board. Asylum seekers who
can prove their identity, or
who are cooperating with
authorities to establish their
identity, are entitled to work.
Asylum seekers have regular
meetings with caseworkers
appointed by the Swedish
Migration Board. Caseworkers can refer clients for
medical care, counselling
or other services where
required. They also provide
motivational counselling to
prepare the asylum seeker
for all possible immigration
outcomes, and assess the
risk of absconding due to a
negative asylum decision.
There are three options on
negative decisions: volun-
SWEDEN
tary repatriation, escort by
caseworkers or transfer to
the authority of the police
(forced return). Incentives
are provided to those who
opt for voluntarily repatriation, including financial assistance, and travel arranged
by the caseworker and paid
for by the Swedish Migration Board. 259 Where there is
no risk of absconding, failed
asylum seekers are given
between 14 and 30 calendar
days to leave the country
independently. In 2012, 68%
of third country nationals ordered to leave the
country departed voluntarily or through an Assisted
Voluntary Return program. 260
Those who do not cooperate
with independent departure
options can have conditions
introduced including reporting requirements or reduced
benefits. 261 As seen in Box 27
, detention is only applied as
a last resort during deportation procedures in conditions
that support dignity and
wellbeing.
Hosting transit migrants

Countries that host large numbers of noncitizens intending to transit within undocumented mixed migration experience
particular pressures and challenges. 262
Governments of preferred destinations are
increasingly working to thwart the journeys
of those intending to reach their territory.
However, migrants excluded from legal
migration options and from full participation
in local society are likely to accept greater
risks to resolve their situation. 264
Indeed, strict control measures do not
resolve the factors motivating migration.
Increased use of detention and other forms
of enforcement increases the likelihood
migrants will avoid authorities entirely,
participate in unregulated or illegal activity
or accept greater risks to continue the
journey. 265 One study in Libya concluded:
The absence of a humane and orderly
framework for handling migration flows
in Libya is no doubt a contributing
factor to the ever increasing numbers of
migrants, asylum seekers and refugees
willing to risk their lives in the Mediterranean to reach the safety of Europe.266
While secondary movement cannot always
be prevented, a range of strategies can
be utilised by States to better understand, respond to and manage such mixed
migration. In the first instance, screening
and assessment assists in understanding
factors driving migrant journeys. As shown
in Section 6, all governments benefit from
understanding these factors to ensure
placement decisions are well informed and
address identified concerns. For example,
people who are migrating due to persecution, systemic violence or extreme poverty
are seeking different outcomes to those
who are seeking to reunite with family.
Understanding these motivating factors

and identifying the likelihood that some
migrants will remain in the system while
awaiting an outcome assists in determining
appropriate placement options, including
shelters for children, victims of crime and
trafficking and vulnerable groups and
reception centres for asylum seekers.
There is evidence that

migrants are less likely
to abscond in a country
they intend to transit
if they can: meet their
basic needs through
legal avenues; are not
at risk of detention or
refoulement, and remain
hopeful regarding
future prospects.
In most instances, these transit community
models retain the right to freedom of
movement in the community; in some
contexts, migrants are required to reside in
specific towns (Box 13 Turkey) or to not enter
border areas (airport or seaport) without
permission (Indonesia). 267 Conditions, such
as reporting, are only applied as needed. The
principles of case management and information about available options remains central,
as seen in reduced levels of absconding in
Thailand and Indonesia (Section 2.4.1).
63
Asylum seekers, refugees and migrants

are less likely to abscond in a country
they intend to transit if they can:
Meet their basic needs through

legal avenues
Are not at risk of detention

or refoulement, and
Remain hopeful regarding

future prospects. 268
Examples of alternatives in countries
hosting large numbers of transit migrants
include Box 2 Poland and Croatia, Box 7
Hungary, Box 5 Panama, Indonesia, Israel
and Malta, Box 8 Spain, Box 9 Romania, Box
13 Turkey, Box 19 Hungary, Box 22 Greece,
Box 23 Slovenia and Box 26 Mexico.
Notwithstanding these strategies, complete
control in all cases is unrealistic. Effective
solutions include proactive, preventative
mechanisms that address the root causes
of migration and that build a stronger
BOX 22
CLOSING DETENTION CENTRES IN FAVOUR OF ALTERNATIVES
The Greek government

started releasing people
from detention in February 2015 as part of a policy
of more humane treatment
of migrants. 270 For over ten
years, Greece had systematically detained refugees,
asylum seekers and migrants
who entered the country
irregularly, garnering heavy
criticism for falling short
of international minimum
standards.
After visiting the notorious Amygdaleza detention
centre, the Deputy Interior
64
international system of burden sharing,

including transnational cooperation and
regional solutions. The government of the
United States recently announced a major
funding initiative to address the root causes
of irregular migration by unaccompanied
children. The program aims to support the
security, good governance and economic
prosperity of countries in the Northern
Triangle. As the Vice President, Joe Biden,
stated in his announcement of the plan, the
cost of investing now in a secure and prosperous Central America is modest compared
with the costs of letting violence and poverty
fester.269 Such a response reframes issues of
irregular migration as an issue of international
development and security. Detention does
not effectively reduce mixed migration. Ultimately, managing undocumented migrants
in transit requires understanding motivating factors to determine fair, timely and
humane national responses, and for broader
regional dialogue on longer-term solutions.
Minister stated Detention

centres were finished with
them Im here to express
my shame, not as a minister
but as a human being I
couldnt believe what I saw.
I really could not believe
it. This must change and it
must change immediately.271
The announced policy
changes include:
The immediate
revocation of the
Ministerial Decision
allowing for the prolongation of detention
beyond 18 months
GREECE
The immediate release

and referral to accommodation facilities of
vulnerable groups,
including unaccompanied minors
The release of registered

asylum seekers whose
detention exceeds six
months
The immediate implementation of measures

to substantially improve
detention conditions
The use of alternative

measures to detention 272
8.2 Conditions or limited restrictions

in the community, with review
The foundation provided through minimum
standards including formal status and
documentation, legal advice, basic needs
and fundamental rights create a strong
context from which individuals can participate in the administrative procedures associated with achieving case resolution. Satisfactory outcomes can often be achieved without
extra conditions or restrictions being imposed.
However, for those individuals with a
history of non-compliance or where
there are other serious concerns identified through the screening and assessment
process, there are a range of conditions
or restrictions that may promote compliance without undue restrictions on liberty
or freedom of movement. Unfortunately,
there is very limited data available documenting the specific levels of effectiveness
of each of these conditions or restrictions. 273
The data that is available has been noted.
Conditions or restrictions may include
the following:
Monitoring
Supervision
Surety and other consequences
decision may lead to an increase in conditions or restrictions. Conversely, it is often

appropriate to decrease the level or type of
conditions for an individual who is working
well with authorities. It is important that the
application of conditions is independently
monitored to ensure that any conditions or
restrictions are applied in limited circumstances and only when necessary. 274 For
example, Venezuela maintains a 30-day time
limit on the use of any conditions imposed
to implement a deportation order. 275
It should be noted that the undue application of additional conditions or restrictions can
increase the costs of community management
programs unnecessarily while also decreasing
efficiency. Compliance issues may arise when
conditions or restrictions create an unmanageable or unfair burden for the individual. For
instance, in-person reporting can be overly
onerous if it requires lengthy or expensive
travel, if it regularly disrupts legal employment or if is required of those responsible for
caring for children or the sick. Such conditions sometimes lead to non-compliance,
even when the individual is willing to remain
in contact with authorities. If such requirements are too onerous, or is required at high
levels over long periods of time, compliance can be inadvertently compromised.
for non-compliance
Many alternatives integrate a number of these
mechanisms together with the minimum
standards of legal advice, basic needs, legal
status and documentation and case management to create effective management
programs in a community context. As detailed
in Regular review of placement decisions,
ongoing and regular assessments should be
conducted to re-negotiate or amend the use
of conditions and restrictions as a persons
circumstances change, to make sure they
are not unnecessary or disproportional. For
instance, reassessment of a case due to
non-compliance or a negative visa or status
8.2.1 Monitoring
Authorities often make use of monitoring
mechanisms to ensure that irregular migrants
remain in contact with authorities and can
be located to participate in the progress of
their migration case as required. 276 Monitoring mechanisms are designed to establish
and maintain a line of communication and
to keep track of an individuals whereabouts. Monitoring differs from supervision or
case management in that it does not provide
opportunities to communicate or to respond
to substantial matters such as changes in
65
a persons situation or concerns regarding

compliance. Monitoring mechanisms include:
Registration with authorities

Nominated address
Handover of travel documents
Reporting requirements
Directed residence
Registration with authorities
Registration provides authorities with a central
database of all relevant cases and is often
closely linked with the issuing of documentation. This strategy is well established in many
countries, however its use is still growing in
some regions. For instance, the use of registration processes for asylum seekers and refugees
in Uganda, Zambia and Kenya has resulted in
fewer people being detained unnecessarily. 277
Nominated address
Providing a nominated address is used by
different governments for different reasons.
Some governments use this mechanism
largely to ensure that the applicant will
receive all official communication about
the progression of the case. Other governments use a registered address to monitor
movement and ensure the individual can be
located by authorities in the community. 278
The address that can be registered depends
on these different purposes: it may be the
personal, residential address of the individual (including that of an accommodation facility) or it may be another address,
such as that of the persons legal counsel. The
requirement to provide a nominated or registered address is used in Box 25 Canada.
Handover of travel documents
When an individual is assessed as a high risk
of transit or absconding, authorities may
decide to take possession of the individu-
66
als travel documents, such as a passport,

until migration matters are resolved. This is
seen as an effective strategy to reduce the
use of asylum processes to gain entry to a
territory to work unlawfully for short periods
of time. 279 Authorities must ensure that such
documents are kept in secure locations and
can be retrieved by the individual should
they decide to depart the country voluntarily. In addition, appropriate documentation needs to be issued as a replacement so
that the individual can continue with everyday
activities that require identification and to
protect them from unnecessary detention.
This strategy is used in several countries
including Hungary, 280 Austria, 281 Jordan, Box
2 Poland and Croatia and Box 25 Canada.
Reporting requirements
An obligation to report regularly to authorities is the most common condition identified.
Reporting acts as a monitoring mechanism
by ensuring the individual remains known
to and in contact with authorities. In-person
reporting requires the individual to present
themselves at set intervals at a nominated
location (such as an immigration office,
police station or contracted agency). They
are often then required to sign a register
documenting their presence. Telephone
reporting requires the individual to call a
particular number at set times (sometimes
from a set telephone number) and to record
a statement, which is subsequently verified
using voice recognition technology. 282
In many contexts, authorities or the courts
have the discretion to decide the frequency
of reporting. Screening and ongoing assessment will assist authorities to determine appropriate reporting requirements, and reduce
the expense and impact of unnecessary or
overly onerous reporting obligations. Personal
circumstances should be taken into account
when determining this condition. Individuals
with vulnerabilities (such as illness, disability

or pregnancy) should be offered modified
measures such as telephone reporting or less
frequent, in-person reporting. Other relevant
factors may include distance to be travelled,
transportation available, caring obligations
and employment schedule. The frequency of
reporting should be reviewed and modified, as
circumstances require. For instance, if a date
of departure is approaching, greater frequency
may be necessary. On the other hand, once
the individual has established trust by fulfilling
initial reporting requirements, less onerous
reporting conditions can be introduced. 283
Unnecessary reporting requirements erode
trust in the system and wastes resources. 284
De facto reporting occurs when the individual can only renew a temporary residency
status or obtain food vouchers or other
goods in person; however, this only contributes to monitoring if a lack of appearance is reported to authorities. Failure
to attend should not deprive an individual of his or her allocations. Some of the
countries that use reporting include Box
13 Turkey, Box 14 Hong Kong and Box 10
Canada, as well as Box 23 Slovenia, United
States, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
Directed residence
Some governments direct individuals to live in
certain locations, leading to a de facto form of
monitoring. For example, migrants who require
shelter may be directed to live at a particular
migrant accommodation centre. In addition to
establishing a known address, such accommodation centres sometimes fulfil additional
monitoring activities by reporting absentee
residents to immigration authorities. Further,
some centres have immigration officers or
case managers located on-site, increasing
contact with migration authorities. Other
countries direct individuals to live in a certain
region or district within the country. This is
usually designed to distribute the burden of
social welfare across regional or local government areas. Examples of directed residence
can be found in Box 2 Poland and Croatia, Box
8 Spain, Box 13 Turkey and Box 18 Belgium.
67
8.2.2 Supervision
Supervision by migration authorities
Supervision involves a substantial commitment

to directly monitor, evaluate and respond to an
individuals compliance with their undertakings and monitoring activities. Supervision is
a separate function to case management due
to its focus on compliance and case resolution. It is more active than monitoring, as it
provides the officer with authority to respond
to changes in circumstances or deal with
compliance issues. Supervision can involve:
Intensive supervision is used by migration

authorities to directly observe an individuals
location and activities. Intensive supervision
substantially increases the level of communication and contact between authorities
and an individual through telephone calls,
meetings and home visits. This intensive work
is designed to establish and verify information, such as whether the person is actually
living at the address provided. Supervision provides authorities with the information required to make decisions about case
management or case resolution, including
appropriate pathways for those facing
return. Intensive supervision programs
Supervision by migration authorities

Delegated supervision
BOX 23
REPORTING AS A MONITORING MECHANISM
Slovenia Third country nationals subject to a deportation order may be required

to report to the nearest
police station instead of being placed in detention. 285 Individuals are usually required
to report once per month.
United States The United
States uses both telephone
and in-person reporting. The
telephonic reporting voice
verification program makes
automated calls to participants at periodic intervals,
requiring them to call back
within a certain timeframe.
When the call is returned,
the computer compares the
callers voice against the registered biometric voiceprint
68
and registers them as having

reported. 286
Sweden Individuals subject
to a supervision order (a
combination of reporting
and a surrender of documents) are obliged to report
to the nearest police station
or the Swedish Migration
Board on a regular basis.
There is no standardised
procedure regarding its
application; instead, the
frequency of reporting is determined on a case-by-case
basis. Reporting frequencies usually range from once
a week to once every two
weeks. However, they can be
every day if an individual is
determined to pose a high
risk of absconding. Failure
VARIOUS COUNTRIES
to report leads to a follow up
assessment; it does not automatically lead to detention.
If the assessment identifies
a high risk of absconding, a
decision to detain may be
taken.
United Kingdom - Asylum
seekers and irregular migrants are regularly required
to report either to local
Home Office offices or, more
rarely, to police stations.
Reporting requirements and
conditions are regulated in
the UK Home Office Guidance Reporting Standards
of Operational Practice. The
frequency of reporting varies
considerably, usually from
every day to once a month.
appear to be most successful when established in conjunction with case management,

legal support, basic needs and documentation, as seen in Box 24 the United States.
Delegated supervision
Immigration authorities sometimes delegate
supervision tasks by authorising another
organisation or individual to supervise the
compliance of irregular migrants with the
conditions of their release. Non-government organisations have sometimes been
BOX 24
willing to undertake supervision responsibilities as part of a broader support program,

particularly if it is a condition of release
from detention. When family members
or community groups commit their funds
through a guarantor or bail program (see
Section 8.2.3 Bail, bond, surety or guarantee)
this may result in an informal form of supervision, as they take on some of the consequences for non-compliance. Delegated
supervision can be seen in Box 10 Canada.
SUPERVISION DURING REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
In the United States, the Vera

Institute for Justice was contracted by the government
to undertake a three year
test of community supervision for people in immigration removal proceedings
between 1997 and 2000. 287
The study compared the
outcomes of those released
into the program with a control group released through
standard bond or parole
procedures. Participants for
the program were identified
through a screening and
assessment process and
required to have a verified
residential address. Participants received information
about immigration proceedings and the consequences
of non-compliance; reminders of court hearings; and
referrals to legal representatives and support services
such as food banks and
health clinics. A sub-group
placed in intensive supervi-
sion were required to have a

guarantor, such as a relative,
who agreed to take moral
responsibility for the person
to fulfil their obligations. 288
These participants were
monitored through regular
reporting by telephone or
in person and home visits.
The program cost US$12 per
day as compared with $61
per day for detainees in the
same period. 289
The Appearance Assistance
Program demonstrated that
authorities did not need to
detain all noncitizens in removal proceedings to ensure
high rates of appearance at
immigration court hearings:
91% of participants in the
intensive program attended
all required hearings compared with 71% of those in a
control group. The effect on
appearance rates was most
dramatic for those least
likely to appear undocu-
THE UNITED STATES

mented workers with little
chance of winning their migration case in supervision:
88% of this group appeared
at all hearings when supervised, compared with 59% of
those in a comparison group
released through standard
bond procedures.
The project found that
supervision was cost effective and almost doubled the
rate of compliance with final
orders, with 69% of participants in intensive supervision complying with the
final order in comparison to
38% of a comparison group
released on bond or parole.
Outcomes were associated with several factors in
addition to monitoring and
supervision activities including family or community ties,
in-depth explanation regarding the hearing process, and
assistance to depart the
country legally.
69
When supervision is undertaken by an

organisation providing other support
services, such as providing for basic needs,
it is important to clarify the roles of each
party in terms of compliance and enforcement (for example, see Box 14 Hong Kong).
A focus on service provision may preclude
some organisations from reporting instances
of non-compliance to authorities.
the effectiveness of negative consequences

in increasing compliance with conditions
of release. 290 Notwithstanding this lack of
evidence, the strategy is commonly used
by governments and is included in this
Handbook to prompt discussion. Consequences for non-compliance include:
Bail, bond, surety or guarantee

Other consequences.
8.2.3 Surety and other consequences

for non-compliance
Bail, bond, surety or guarantee
Several mechanisms used to manage people

in a community setting impose consequences if particular conditions are not met.
There is no authoritative evidence regarding
Bail, bond, surety or guarantor systems all

create a negative financial consequence for
non-compliance. These are similar mechanisms by which a sum of money is forfeit if
the individual does not comply with his or her
BOX 25
BAIL AS A CONSEQUENCE FOR NON-COMPLIANCE
Canada uses financial consequences, through a bail

mechanism, as one tool in
its system for managing irregular migrants and asylum
seekers in the community. 292
The decision to detain is
automatically reviewed at
regular detention review
hearings. These hearings are
undertaken by a member of
the Immigration and Refugee Board within 48 hours
of detention, then within
another seven days and then
every 30 days thereafter, as
required. 293 Detainees may
also request a review hearing if they have new facts
pertaining to the decision
to detain. Eligible detainees
may access free legal representation in the form of legal
70
aid. At detention hearings,

the burden of proof lies with
the border services agency
to demonstrate a continuing need for detention for a
reason outlined in law. The
detainee may also submit
information to support their
case for release. Bail is automatically considered as an
option to enable release at
these hearings.
At these hearings, release
may be ordered with or
without conditions being
imposed. A significant factor
in favour of release is if the
detainees application is supported by a bondsperson.
A bondsperson agrees to
pay a monetary bond which
is paid up front, held in trust
and then returned if the
CANADA
individual complies with the
conditions of their release,
which may include, inter
alia, providing a nominated
address, handover of travel
documents, or reporting
requirements. In some situations, the money does not
need to be paid unless the
person does not comply
with the conditions of their
release. A bondsperson is often someone who knows the
detainee personally and is
confident in their willingness
to comply with authorities. 294
Several non-government organisations in Canada offer
to act as a bondsperson for
detainees who do not have
either the resources or family/community ties required
to make bail.
immigration procedures or other conditions

of their release to the community. The money
involved in these schemes can be from the
individual themselves, or from a third party
such as a family member, friend or community
organisation. 291 Some of these mechanisms
require a sum to be paid up front, which can be
retrieved if their obligations are fulfilled. Others
require a sum of money to be paid to authorities only if the applicant does not fulfil his or
her commitments. In order to be both accessible and effective for eligible detainees, such
schemes are best served by setting amounts
based on the individuals financial situation.
In several countries that operate a system
of financial consequences, non-government
organisations have funds available to eligible
detainees who may otherwise be unable to
afford to apply to the bond program. Such
schemes can be seen in Box 14 Hong Kong,
Box 24 the United States and Box 10 Canada.
Other consequences
Finally, some countries rely on the threat of
negative consequences to try and reduce
non-compliance. The least imposing consequence is to increase conditions. This may
mean new conditions are introduced or
existing conditions, such as reporting, are
intensified. Meanwhile, some governments
cut access to basic social welfare, such as
housing, as a consequence for non-compliance. However, this fails to fulfil the principle
of minimum standards and can be counterproductive for case resolution. As shown in
Section 5.2 on basic needs, migrants who
become homeless and impoverished are less
likely to remain in contact with authorities.
Maintaining minimum
standards can assist case
resolution as detailed in
Section 5
Detention is a further mechanism used as

a consequence for non-compliance. It is
unclear in what ways the threat of detention
may affect compliance and does not in itself
guarantee case resolution such as departure. 295
Finally, a consequence for those with no
further avenue to remain in the country is to
withdraw the option of supported and/or independent departure. Independent departure
allows returnees to retain a level of autonomy
and control over matters such as packing
up belongings, organising finances (such as
closing bank accounts), and saying farewell
to family and friends. Enforced departure or
deportation is a much more traumatic and
degrading experience in which migrants are
subject to the full force of State authority.
Further, deportation is often linked to bans
on re-entry (with implications for all subsequent international travel) and/or a debt for
deportation procedures. 296 These adverse
consequences are designed to encourage
independent departure. Examples of consequences for non-compliance can be seen
in Box 14 Hong Kong and Box 21 Sweden.
8.3 Detention as a last

resort, with review
International human rights law and standards
make clear that immigration detention should
be used only as a last resort, in exceptional
cases, after all other options have been
shown to be inadequate in the individual
case. The use of confinement with people in
an administrative procedure is highly controversial due to its negative impact on health,
wellbeing and human rights. Detention should
be avoided entirely for vulnerable individuals and be in accordance with international,
regional and national law and standards. This
includes the requirement that the standards
of necessity, reasonableness and proportionality have been met in the individual case. In
spite of these serious concerns, detention is
included here to be used only as a last resort
for exceptional cases after a comprehen-
71
sive process has determined before an independent judicial authority that all other options
will not address the identified concerns.
If detention is to be used in accordance
with international law, several preconditions must be met. It must be:
Lawful
Necessary and reasonable in the circumstances
For a legitimate purpose
BOX 26
72
Proportionate to achieve that legitimate

purpose
Applied without discrimination

The last resort based on evidence there
are no alternatives that can achieve that
legitimate purpose.
Authorities must be able to show that
detention is necessary and proportionate
to the reasons for the detention and that
they have come to that decision through
a thorough assessment of the individual
DETENTION RELEASE OPTIONS
Philippines Section 13 of
the Department of Justice
Department Order No. 94,
series of 1998, provides for
the provisional release of
refugee applicants from
detention. 298 Through this
Department Order, detainees who seek asylum may
be released by order of the
Department of Justice. In
practice, the asylum seeker
is issued with a Certification
of Status in coordination
with UNHCR. This document
is sent to the Immigration
Commissioner to complete
and issue. The only condition is that the asylum seeker
agrees to follow the requirements of the Refugee Status
Determination process.
Within this system, Australia

has an avenue to release
detainees who are unable
to depart the country due
to circumstances outside
their control, such as when
their country of origin or
regular domicile is unable
or unwilling to issue travel
documents. The Removal
Pending Bridging Visa
enables migrants who are
complying with efforts to
prepare for their removal
to be released from detention while this preparation is
completed. The visa includes
the right to work, access to
healthcare and basic welfare.
Visa holders must assist with
preparations to depart the
country.
Australia has a series of

bridging visas, used to
provide temporary legal
status to migrants who have
applied for a substantive visa
or are preparing for return. 299
In Mexico, legislation provides that an individual must

be released from detention when their departure
or deportation cannot be
achieved within 60 days,
VARIOUS COUNTRIES
due to administrative or
logistical hurdles (such as
difficulty obtaining travel
documents or unconfirmed
identity and/or nationality)
or due to serious physical or
mental health concerns. The
individual is instead granted
with a temporary residence
status, together with work
rights (through Article 111 of
the Immigration Act).
South Korea has a provisional release visa which
provides authorities with
a discretionary avenue to
release migrants from detention. Established under
Article 65 of the Immigration
Control Act and its decree,
the visa can be issued with
consideration of the following factors: irreparable harm
to the detainee, possibility of
absconding and humanitarian concerns. 300
without discrimination, and that all other

options have been explored. In such cases,
detention in appropriate conditions, of limited
duration and with regular judicial or other
independent review in line with international
standards, may be considered the last resort.
Comprehensive information on the areas of
detention that require oversight and vigilant
monitoring are available elsewhere. 297 While
these are not repeated in detail here, the key
areas of note include detention and immigration procedures; treatment and safeguards;
safety, order and discipline; material conditions; activities; health care; personnel/staffing;
and persons in situations of risk/vulnerability.
8.4 Alternative forms of detention

The IDCs program of research was designed
to focus on those forms of migration governance that allow migrants to live in the
community with liberty and freedom of
movement while their migration status is
being resolved. As a result of this focus, any
form of management that amounts to de
facto detention by having the intended or
unintended effect of substantially curtailing
or completely denying liberty and freedom
of movement is regarded as a form of
detention. The various forms of detention
include transit zones, closed accommodation centres, alternative places of detention,
home detention (including curfews), and
traditional immigration detention centres.
the community has been strictly limited to

certain areas or at particular times of day. 301
Alternative forms of
detention require an
extremely high threshold
before application
including a high level
of regulation and
independent oversight
These devices are attached to the persons
body, usually by being securely strapped
around the ankle. Some of these devices
use Global Positioning System (GPS) technology to be able to identify the specific
location of an individual at any given time.
Other devices require the person wearing the
device to be at a base unit at set times and
is used to monitor compliance with curfews.
All such forms of regulation are included
within this section on detention because they
substantially curtail freedom of movement
and liberty, and consequently require an
extremely high threshold before application. As with other forms of detention, they
require a high level of regulation and independent oversight, including prompt and
regular judicial review and monitoring.
In addition, certain forms of electronic monitoring are viewed as an alternative form of

detention due to their use to substantially
curtail liberty and freedom of movement.
Electronic monitoring devices, or ankle
bracelets, are used to monitor the location
of an individual whose movement within
73
BOX 27
DETENTION CONDITIONS THAT RESPECT DIGNITY AND WELL-BEING
In Sweden, detention may

only be used for people
who are in the process of
being deported because
they have not complied with
a final negative decision
requiring them to depart the
country. 302 Detention centres
are small, closed accommodation facilities. Residents
can move about freely
within the facility. Bedrooms
are shared between two
to four people. There are
lounge areas with televi-
74
sions, computer rooms

with access to the Internet,
and gyms. Most rooms
have windows looking out
to garden areas. Supervised access to a central
courtyard provides limited
access to an outdoor area.
Residents can use mobile
phones that do not have an
in-built camera. Staff work to
build a culture of dignity and
respect with clients. They do
not wear security uniforms
or carry weapons. Rooms for
SWEDEN
visitors are furnished with

tables, chairs, lounges and
toys for children. Two nongovernment organisations
have unrestricted access
to the centres to support
residents, provide additional activities and informally monitor the conditions
of detention. These conditions have been found to be
of a very high standard by
international observers.303
9. Conclusion
This Handbook has identified and described
laws, policies and practices that allow noncitizens to remain in the community with
freedom of movement while their migration
status is being resolved, or while awaiting
deportation or removal from the country. This
pragmatic approach was underpinned by a
human rights framework and a concern for
minimising harm but shaped by the legitimate concerns of government in terms
of compliance, timely case resolution and
cost. In taking such a broad approach, the
IDCs program of research has been able
to identify strategies to prevent unnecessary detention and reduce the length of time
someone is detained, while also outlining key
factors impacting the effectiveness of case
management programs in the community.
of the issues, while the practical country

examples elaborate on aspects of implementation and demonstrate that reducing
detention through community management
is achievable and beneficial for a range of
parties. Further research and evaluation of
alternatives would provide a much stronger
foundation for future policy development.
This Handbook has taken a strengthsbased approach to the issue of detention
by focusing on those laws, policies or
programs that impose the least restrictions on freedom of movement or that
maintain the highest threshold for decisions
to detain. For this reason, positive elements
of a countrys law, policy or practice that
may be worth replicating in other settings
have been included, even when there may
be concerns about another aspect of that
countrys detention or migration policy.
With effective laws and

policies, clear systems
and good implementation,
managing asylum seekers,
refugees and irregular
migrants can be achieved
in the community in most
instances
Notwithstanding the high importance for

governments to create migration systems that
respect human rights and protect migrants
from unnecessary detention, this Handbook
has highlighted opportunities for non-government organisations to develop and offer
alternatives independently or in partnership
with government authorities. This report has
attempted to point to potential areas for both
governments and non-government organisations to work on for productive change.
These findings have been brought together

in the Revised CAP model. The Revised CAP
outlines the principles and processes that,
together, prevent unnecessary detention and
support the success of community placement
options. The Revised CAP model is not
designed to offer a single solution to the issues
faced by governments in governing migration,
but it may identify ways of moving forward
in this difficult area of policy. The Revised
CAP model can assist in framing discussions and providing a shared understanding
This Handbook has shown that there is a

range of alternatives to detention that governments can draw upon to reduce unnecessary detention and increase the success
of community-based management. Many
solutions exist. In fact, the IDC has identified more than 250 examples in over 60
countries. This includes in countries with
large numbers of mixed migrants and fewer
resources. Further, alternatives can be applied
in the majority of cases. Detention is rarely
necessary while working towards satisfactory case resolution. Placement options range
75
from open accommodation in the community

with minimal requirements for low-risk groups
through to intensive supervision and case
management for populations of highest
concern, such as non-citizens facing deportation after completing a prison sentence.
Alternatives are also associated with a range
of benefits. First, alternatives are up to 80%
cheaper than detention due to lower running
costs. They also eliminate costly litigation and
compensation claims. Second, alternatives
are less harmful than detention. Community
placement supports health and wellbeing and
upholds human rights. They also see people
better placed to move forward with their
lives once their migration status is resolved,
whether it be integration or departure. Third,
alternatives can achieve effective case resolution outcomes. Alternatives have been
shown to achieve up to 95% appearance
rates and up to 69% voluntary and independent return rates for refused cases.
It is challenging to govern migration in a way
that reflects authority over national territory
while also treating non-citizens in a humane
and dignified manner. This research has identified and described a range of mechanisms
used to prevent unnecessary detention and
provide alternatives to detention that protect
the rights and dignity of asylum seekers,
refugees and irregular migrants while meeting
government and community expectations. The
policies described in this report, as outlined
in CAP, are currently being implemented
in a range of countries to enforce immigration law through mechanisms that do not rely
heavily on detention. Such targeted enforcement provides a sophisticated response to the
diverse population of irregular migrants and
asylum seekers within national territories.
76
Dealing with irregular migration is an everyday

issue of governance. As this Handbook
shows, with effective laws and policies,
clear systems and good implementation,
managing asylum seekers, refugees and
irregular migrants can be achieved in the
community in most instances. By learning
to screen and assess the case of each individual subject to or at risk of detention,
authorities can learn to manage people in the
community in the majority of cases without
the financial and human cost that detention
incurs. The Handbook shows that cost-effective and reliable alternatives to detention are
currently used in a variety of settings and
have been found to benefit a range of stakeholders affected by this area of policy.
Suggested further reading

A number of these papers are available on the International Detention Coalition
website at http://idcoalition.org/issues/alternatives-to-detention
1. The Forced Migration Review Special Issue 44 on Detention, alternatives to detention, and
deportation 2013 available at: http://www.fmreview.org/detention/contents
2. Costello, C. & Kaytaz, E. (2013). Building empirical evidence into alternatives to detention: Perceptions
of asylum-seekers and refugees in Toronto and Geneva. Geneva: UNHCR.
3. De Bruycker, P. (Ed.), Bloomfield, A., Tsourdi, E. & Ptin, J. (2015). Alternatives to immigration and
asylum detention in the EU: Time for implementation. Odysseus Network and the European Union.
4. Edwards, A. (2011). Back to basics: The right to liberty and security of person and alternatives to
detention of asylum-seekers, stateless persons, and other migrants. UNHCR Legal and Protection
Policy Research Series. Geneva: UNHCR.
5. European Migration Network. (2014). The use of detention and alternatives to detention in the context
of immigration policies: Synthesis report for the EMN Focussed Study 2014. European Commission.
6. Field, O., & Edwards, A. (2006). Alternatives to detention of asylum seekers and refugees. Geneva:
UNHCR.
7. Jesuit Refugee Service Europe. (2010). Becoming vulnerable in detention: Civil society report on the
detention of vulnerable asylum seekers and irregular migrants in the European Union. Brussels: JRS
Europe.
8. Jesuit Refugee Service Europe. (2011). From deprivation to liberty - alternatives to detention in
Belgium, Germany and the United Kingdom. Brussels: JRS Europe.
9. Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service. (2009). Alternatives to detention programs: An international perspective. Washington, D.C.: LIRS.
10. Mitchell, G., & Kirsner, S. (2004). Asylum seekers living in the Australian community: A casework and
reception approach, Asylum Seeker Project, Hotham Mission, Melbourne. Refuge, 22(1), 119-128.
11. Robinson, V., & Segrott, J. (2002). Understanding the decision-making of asylum seekers. London:
Home Office.
12. Sampson, R. (2013). Embodied borders: Biopolitics, knowledge mobilisation and alternatives to
immigration detention. PhD thesis, Politics, La Trobe University.
13. Sampson, R., & Mitchell, G. (2013).Global trends in immigration detention and alternatives to
detention: Practical, political and symbolic rationales. Journal on Migration and Human Security, 1(3),
97-121. http://dx.doi.org/10.14240/jmhs.v1i3.14.
14. Sullivan, E., Mottino, F., Khashu, A., & ONeil, M. (2000). Testing community supervision for the INS: An
evaluation of the appearance assistance program Volume 1. New York: Vera Institute for Justice.
15. UN High Commissioner for Refugees. (2012). Detention guidelines: Guidelines on the applicable
criteria and standards relating to the detention of asylum-seekers and alternatives to detention.
Geneva: UNHCR.
16. UN High Commissioner for Refugees. (2014). Beyond detention: A global strategy to support
governments to end the detention of asylum-seekers and refugees. Geneva: UNHCR. Available
at http://www.refworld.org/docid/536b564d4.html
77
Glossary
Term
Definition
Absconding
Actions taken by a person to avoid contact with immigration authorities in

order to avoid legal migration proceedings and/or outcomes.
Alternative(s)
Any law, policy or practice by which persons are able to reside in the
to immigration
community, without being detained for migration-related reasons.
detention
(alternatives)
Alternative forms of
Any form of migration control which may not be officially recognised or
detention
classified as detention, but which amounts to de facto detention, by having the

intended or unintended effect of substantially curtailing or completely denying
liberty and freedom of movement.
Asylum seeker
A person who has made an application to be recognised as a refugee, but who

has not yet received a final decision on that application.
Case management
A comprehensive and systematic service delivery approach designed to

ensure support for, and a coordinated response to, the health and wellbeing
of people with complex needs. Case management centres on understanding
and responding to the unique needs and challenges of individuals and their
context, including vulnerability, protection and risk factors.
Case resolution
A final outcome of a persons immigration status including permission to

remain in the territory, departure to the country of origin or country of habitual
residence, or departure to a third country.
Child
A person below the age of eighteen years.
Compliance
To fulfil any conditions or immigration-related requirements expressly imposed

by the relevant authorities on a person to regulate his/her stay in, or departure
from, the country.
Community
The wider society of the country. Community-based alternatives use

government and/or civil-society support to place and manage persons outside
of detention amongst the civilian population. The term is not used to reference
specific types of community, such as ethnic or location-based communities.
Conditions
Conditions are actions that individuals are required to undertake to achieve

compliance. Conditions must be shown to be necessary and proportionate in
the individual case or their application will be arbitrary.
78
Term
Definition
Deportation
The act of a State to remove a person from its territory after the person has
been refused admission or has forfeited or never obtained permission to
remain on the territory. A person may be deported to his or her country of
origin, habitual residence, or a third country.
In this Handbook, the term deportation is used synonymously with forced
removal and expulsion, unless otherwise indicated. It is noted that these
terms may have different usages and meanings under different national and
international laws.
Deprivation of liberty
Any form of detention or imprisonment or the placement of a person in a

public or private custodial setting which that person is not permitted to leave
at will by order of any judicial, administrative or other authority. Optional
Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT), Art. 4(2)
Guardian
The legally recognised relationship between a designated competent adult

and a child or disadvantaged person in order to assure and safeguard the
protection of her or his rights. A guardian has a range of powers, rights and
duties, including exercising rights on behalf of the child and protecting the
best interests of the child.
Immigration detention
The deprivation of liberty for migration-related reasons.
Independent
Compliance with the obligation to depart a country within a specified time
departure
period and without government escort, whether to the migrants country

of origin, country of habitual residence, or a third country. (c.f. voluntary
departure).
IOM
International Organization for Migration
Irregular migrant
A migrant who does not fulfil, or no longer fulfils, the conditions of entry, stay
or residence within a State.
Migrant
A person who is outside of a State of which he or she is a citizen, national or

habitual resident. Persons are migrants regardless of whether their migration
is temporary, lawful, regular, irregular, forced, for protection, for economic
reasons, or for any other reason.
Refugee
A person who fulfils the definition of a refugee in the 1951 Convention and
1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees or any regional refugee
instrument. The recognition of refugee status is a declaratory act and the
rights of refugees are invoked before their status is formally recognised by a
decision-maker. For this reason, in this Handbook, unless specifically indicated
to the contrary and particularly where a distinction is necessary in relation to
case resolution, the term refugee includes reference to asylum seekers.
79
Term
Definition
Regularisation
Regularisation is one process through which undocumented migrants gain

legal immigration status. Regularisation includes both one-off initiatives
available for a set period (also called amnesties) and ongoing programs. It
may be aimed at specific groups or on a case-by-case basis for reasons such
as humanitarian protection, medical needs or family unity.
Restrictions
Restrictions are limitations that can be placed on an individual to help achieve

compliance. Restrictions imply some degree of restriction on a persons liberty
or freedom of movement, and must always be shown to be necessary and
proportionate in the individual case, otherwise will be arbitrary.
Separated child
A child separated from both parents, or from their previous legal or customary
primary caregiver, but not necessarily from other relatives. These may,
therefore, include children accompanied by other adult family members.
Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No.6 (2005),
Treatment of Unaccompanied and Separated Children Outside their Country
of Origin.
Stateless person
A person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation
of its law. Article 1 of the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless
Persons. In this Handbook, the term stateless person also includes reference
to persons at risk of statelessness.
Trafficked person
A trafficked person is defined as a person who has been recruited,

transported, transferred, harboured or received by means of the threat or use
of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the
abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving
of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control
over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. UN General Assembly,
Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially
Women and Children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention against
Transnational Organized Crime, 15 November 2000.
Unaccompanied child
A child who has been separated from both parents and other relatives and is
not being cared for by an adult who, by law or custom, is responsible for doing
so. Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No.6 (2005),
Treatment of Unaccompanied and Separated Children Outside their Country
of Origin.
UNHCR
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
Voluntary departure
The decision of a person to depart the country entirely voluntarily, whether to

his or her country of origin, country of habitual residence or a third country.
Voluntary departure may take place even when legal avenues to pursue
residency in that country remain available. (c.f. independent departure)
80
Appendix A Research methods

Research Project #1
The particular aim of this research was to
identify and describe examples of community-based alternatives to immigration
detention. The specific objectives were to:
Identify the policy objectives underlying

the use of immigration detention.
Identify key examples in the management

of asylum seekers, refugees and migrants
which fulfil these policy objectives outside
of detention.
Identify the range of alternatives to

detention that are currently operating
internationally, and describe in detail key
examples in various contexts/regions,
including examples with vulnerable
individuals.
Describe the role of governments and their

institutions in creating and implementing
alternatives to detention.
Describe the role of non-government

organisations and civil society in creating
and sustaining the use of alternatives to
detention.
Describe the immigration outcomes and

cost benefits where known.
Explore the factors which are regarded

as contributing to the effectiveness
of community-based alternatives to
detention.
Data collection was undertaken in
three stages, with each step informing
the next stage of data collection.
Stage 1: Literature review
Three types of literature were identified and
reviewed as the first stage of data collection. This included 1) research on alterna-
tives to detention including both original

research and those based on existing
materials; 2) evaluations of relevant policies
and programs by governments or consultants; and 3) grey literature including policy
documents describing relevant laws, policies
or programs. In addition, relevant international
and regional agreements were used to understand the context of migration regulation.
Stage 2: International internet-based survey
Based on the literature review and consultations with staff of the IDC, an Internetbased survey was undertaken in NovemberDecember 2009. An invitation to participate
was sent via e-mail through a range of
networks including members of the IDC, the
Forced Migration e-group and several other
international organisations and networks. We
had 88 survey responses from 28 countries
(eight participants did not list a country). The
survey data was used to inform the international field work and was included for analysis
as part of the overall qualitative dataset.
Stage 3: International field work
Countries were selected for field work based
on a range of factors including type of alternative to detention program and target
population. In-depth field work was undertaken in eight countries between January
and March 2010. The field work included
interviews regarding broad policy issues
as well as specific alternative to detention
programs. Site visits included, inter alia:
a shelter for unaccompanied minors in

Hungary;
an accommodation centre for asylum

seekers in Spain;
81
a shelter for destitute migrants in Spain;

a return-counselling program for families
in Belgium;
an asylum seeker reception program in
migration; large numbers of refugees, asylum

seekers, stateless persons or irregular
migrants; and/or those with limited resources
available to manage such populations.
Sweden;
a detention centre in Sweden;

a shelter for undocumented migrants in the
Asia/Pacific
Thailand, Indonesia, Pakistan, Malaysia
United States; and
a migrant support program in Hong Kong.
Middle East/North Africa

Yemen, Morocco, Jordan, Egypt
Additional interviews were undertaken with

representatives from international organisations located in Geneva, Switzerland.
A total of 43 interviews with 57 participants
and eight site visits were completed. Participants included representatives of governments, non-government organisations, international advocacy organisations and UN bodies.
Further details on the research methods
for this first project can be found at
pages 14-15 of Sampson, R., Mitchell, G.
and Bowring, L. (2011). There are alternatives: A Handbook for Preventing Unnecessary Immigration Detention. Melbourne:
The International Detention Coalition.
Research Project #2
Consistent with the approach to IDCs 2011
Handbook, qualitative research methods
were utilized to explore the laws, policies
and practices employed by governments to
manage refugees, asylum seekers, stateless
persons and irregular migrants in the
community without resorting to unnecessary and damaging immigration detention.
Qualitative methods were considered most
useful in collecting the kind of information
required to fulfil the objectives of the research.
The following 20 countries were selected,
four from each of the following five regions:
the Americas, Asia-Pacific, Europe, Middle
East and North Africa, and South and
East Africa. Countries were chosen on the
basis that they were experiencing transit
82
South/East Africa
Uganda, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Botswana
Americas
Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico
Europe
Malta, Poland, Romania, Turkey
Data collection consisted of a literature

review for each country and region, as well as
in-depth interviews with governments, nongovernment organisations (local, regional
and international), and international bodies
and organisations working in migration
governance, related to detention and alternatives. Additional interviews were undertaken with regional and international experts
and academics in detention and alternatives.
These participants were identified through a
thematic literature review and in consultation
with IDC staff and members organisations.
International fieldwork/site observations
were also undertaken in three of the 20
countries, namely Turkey, Indonesia, and
Mexico in 2013. In-person interviews were also
conducted in Botswana, Indonesia, Jordan,
Mexico, Malaysia and Turkey. In-person interviews were limited due to financial and
time constraints. All other interviews were
generally conducted remotely, using Skype or
telephone. Some interviews were conducted
with the assistance of an interpreter.
NGO (local or
international)
Government
International
body
Yemen
Morocco
Jordan
Egypt
Zimbabwe
Botswana
Tanzania
Uganda
Costa Rica
Mexico
Ecuador
Brazil
Turkey
Poland
Romania
Malta
Indonesia
Malaysia
Pakistan
Thailand
36*
10*
15*
18*
Country
TOTAL COUNTRIES
EXPERT
TOTAL
TOTAL INTERVIEWS
2
38*
10*
Other
71
83
Other sources of knowledge

These two studies were conducted specifically to identify alternatives across regions
and country contexts. An additional piece
of research on detention and alternatives in
Mexico was undertaken by the IDC Americas
office in 2012. That study involved field
research and interviews with 32 participants
from government and from local, regional and
international non-government organisations.
Finally, the IDC secretariat staff and member
groups have developed a significant body of
expert knowledge on alternatives as a result
of their ongoing work on this issue for over
five years. IDC staff and members have run
and/or attended a series of major international, regional and national roundtables and
consultations on alternatives that have elicited
valuable information and insights that have
informed the revision of the Handbook.
Limitations of the program of research

There are some limitations to the research.
First, the research was not designed to
directly evaluate the effectiveness of different
policies. Instead, this aspect of the findings
are based on the experience of those government representatives and service providers
interviewed and on the findings described in
existing research and government reports.
The relative paucity of evidence in some areas
of policy means the correlation between
specific policies and levels of compliance,
cost and case resolution is not always entirely
clear. In particular, while the research identified programs believed to be better for
health and wellbeing, it did not evaluate this
impact or the ways in which they are experienced by refugees, asylum seekers, stateless
persons or irregular migrants themselves.
As a result, the experiences of those people
most directly impacted by these policies and
programs are absent. Evaluation of these
84
policies for a range of stakeholders would be

of great benefit to future work in this area.
Second, due to financial and time constraints,
in-person interviews were limited, with
data from other countries based on deskbased research and remote interviews.
Given the same questions were asked,
this is not a substantial limitation as IDC
considers that the remote interviews were
still able to provide equivalent information. Conducting remote interviews was
seen as an important method to overcome
geographical and financial limitations.
Third, there are potential limitations to the
interviews themselves due to the number of
interviewers undertaking interviews, which
may have created inconsistencies in the data
obtained. Furthermore, some people did not
respond to IDCs request for an interview,
were unable to be interviewed within the
timeframe or declined to be interviewed due
to organisational restrictions or a consideration that there were risks to being involved
in the research. As a result, IDC was unable
to fully triangulate the interview data in
some countries and no interviews were
conducted for Morocco and Zimbabwe.
Endnotes
1.
In this Handbook, community refers to the

wider society of the host country and not to a
culturally-defined group with shared ethnicity or
language.
2.
Association for the Prevention of Torture, International Detention Coalition, and United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees, Monitoring
Immigration Detention: Practical Manual, (APT
and UNHCR, 2014), <http://idcoalition.org/publications/monitoring-immigration-detentionpractical-guide/>; UN High Commissioner for
Refugees, Guidelines on the Applicable Criteria
and Standards Relating to the Detention of
Asylum-Seekers and Alternatives to Detention,
(Geneva: UNHCR, 2012).
3.
The number of international migrants worldwide

grew from 154 million in 1990 to 232 million
in 2013. See United Nations Department of
Economic and Social Affairs, The Number of
International Migrants Worldwide Reaches 232
Million, Population Facts no. 2013/2 (UNDESA
Population Division, 2013), <http://esa.un.org/
unmigration/documents/The_number_of_international_migrants.pdf>
4.
United Nations Development Programme,

Human Development Report 2009: Overcoming
Barriers: Human Mobility and Development,
(New York: UNDP, 2009), <http://hdr.undp.org/
en/reports/global/hdr2009/>
5.
In the 27 Member States of the European Union

in 2008, there were an estimated 28.9 million
foreign residents of which it is estimated that 1.9
3.8 million were irregular: Vasela Kovacheva
and Dita Vogel, The Size of the Irregular Foreign
Resident Population in the European Union in
2002, 2005 and 2008: Aggregated Estimates,
(Hamburg: Hamburg Institute of International
Economics, 2009), <http://irregular-migration.
hwwi.net/typo3_upload/groups/31/4.Background_Information/4.7.Working_Papers/WP4_
Kovacheva-Vogel_2009_EuropeEstimate_
Dec09.pdf> In 2012, there was an estimated 11.2
million undocumented migrants in the United
States, accounting for 26% of the total migrant
population: Jeffrey S. Passel and DVera Cohn,
Unauthorized Immigrant Totals Rise in 7 States,
Fall in 14 (Washington: Pew Research Centers
Hispanic Trends Project, 2014). Comparative
figures for all regions are difficult to obtain: c.f.
Graeme Hugo, Migration in the Asia-Pacific
Region, (Adelaide: Global Commission on International Migration, 2005).
6.
International Organization for Migration, World

Migration Report 2010. The Future of Migration:
Building Capacities for Change (2005) 29
<http://publications.iom.int/bookstore/free/
WMR_2010_ENGLISH.pdf>
7.
United Nations Development Programme,

Human Development Report 2009, (see n. 4).
8.
Amy Nethery and Stephanie J. Silverman, eds.

Immigration Detention: The Migration of a Policy
and Its Human Impact (Ashgate: Routledge,
2015). For instance, the United States expanded
its detention capacity from 6,785 places per
day in 1994 to 34,000 per day in 2013: Global
Detention Project United States detention
profile (March 2009) < http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/de/countries/americas/unitedstates/introduction.html >. For more details of
global detention capacities see Robyn Sampson
and Grant Mitchell, Global Trends in Immigration Detention and Alternatives to Detention:
Practical, Political and Symbolic Rationales.
Journal on Migration and Human Security 1, no. 3
(2013): 97-121.
9.
Michel Coutu and Marie-Helene Giroux, The

Aftermath of 11 September 2001: Liberty Vs.
Security before the Supreme Court of Canada,
Int J Refugee Law 18, no. 2 (2006): 313-32;
Donald Kerwin, The Use and Misuse of National
Security Rationale in Crafting U.S. Refugee and
Immigration Policies, Int J Refugee Law, 17 no. 4
(2005): 749-763.
10. A good discussion can be found at Khalid Koser,

Irregular Migration, State Security and Human
Security, (London: Global Commission on International Migration, 2005), <http://www.gcim.
org/attachements/TP5.pdf>
11.
Gemma Aubarell, Ricard Zapata-Barrero, and

Xavier Aragall, New Directions of National
Immigration Policies: The Development of the
External Dimension and Its Relationship with
the Euro-Mediterranean Process, In EuroMesco
Paper 79, 2009 http://www.euromesco.net/
euromesco/images/paper79eng.pdf; Global
Detention Project United States (see n. 8);
Derek Lutterbeck, Policing Migration in the
Mediterranean, Mediterranean Politics 11, no. 1
(2006): 59 - 82; Savitri Taylor, The Impact of
Australia-PNG Border Management Cooperation
on Refugee Protection, Local-Global: Identity,
Security, Community (Special issue: Beyond
border control) 8 (2010): 76-99.
12.
Aubarell, Zapata-Barrero and Aragall, New

Directions, (see n. 11); Sandra Lavenex and
Emek M. Uarer, The External Dimension of
Europeanization, Cooperation and Conflict 39,
no. 4 (2004): 417-43; Ricard Zapata-Barrero,
Johantan Zaragoza, and Xavier Aragall, Cooperation and the Externalization of Borders and
85
of Migration Policies: Spains New Political Orientations, In New Directions of National Immigration Policies: The Development of the External
Dimension and Its Relationship with the EuroMediterranean Process, 2009, http://www.
euromesco.net/images/joint%20migration%20
report.pdf.
13.
Sampson and Mitchell, Global Trends, (see n.

8).
14.
The Global Detention Project aims to document

detention infrastructure internationally but
does not have a global estimate. For country
estimates see www.globaldetentionproject.org
15.
Much of this section was first published in April

2015 in the IDC Briefing Paper Does Detention
Deter? Written by Robyn Sampson. Available at
http://idcoalition.org/detentiondatabase/doesdetention-deter/
16.
Arjen Leerkes and Dennis Broeders, A Case of

Mixed Motives? Formal and Informal Functions
of Administrative Immigration Detention, British
Journal of Criminology 50, no. 5 (2010): 830-50.
17.
Alice Edwards, Back to Basics: The Right to

Liberty and Security of Person and Alternatives to Detention of Asylum-Seekers, Stateless
Persons, and Other Migrants, (Geneva: UNHCR,
2011).
18.
19.
For instance, the Australian Minister for Immigration stated: We already have the toughest
mandatory detention regime in the Western
developed world, yet people still come to
AustraliaSo I dont think mandatory detention
should be seen as a deterrent in Michael Owen
and Tony Barrass, Getting Tougher Wont
Stop Boats Says Chris Bowen, The Australian,
November 2nd, 2010. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/getting-tougherwont-stop-boats-says-chris-bowen/storye6frg6nf-1225946353586
Edwards, Back to Basics (see n 17).
20. Heather Crawley, Chance or Choice? Understanding Why Asylum Seekers Come to the UK.
(London: UK Refugee Council, 2010); Kate Day
and Paul White, Choice or Circumstance: The
UK as the Location of Asylum Applications by
Bosnian and Somali Refugees, GeoJournal
56, no. 1 (2002): 15-26; Alan Gilbert and Khalid
Koser, Coming to the UK: What Do AsylumSeekers Know About the UK before Arrival?
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 32, no.
7 (2006): 1209-1225; Tetty Havinga and Anita
Bocker, Country of Asylum by Choice or by
Chance: Asylum-Seekers in Belgium, the Netherlands and the UK, Journal of Ethnic and
Migration Studies 25, no. 1 (1999): 43-61; Thomas
Holzer, Gerald Schneider, and Thomas Widmer,
The Impact of Legislative Deterrence Measures
on the Number of Asylum Applications in Swit-
86
zerland (1986-1995), International Migration

Review 34, no. 4 (2000): 1182; Eric Neumayer,
Asylum Destination Choice: What Makes Some
West European Countries More Attractive
Than Others? European Union Politics 5, no. 2
(2004): 155-80; Roslyn Richardson, Sending a
Message? Refugees and Australias Deterrence
Campaign, Media International Australia, no.
135 (2010): 7-18; Vaughan Robinson and Jeremy
Segrott, Understanding the Decision-Making
of Asylum Seekers, (London: Home Office,
2002); Eiko Thielemann, Does Policy Matter? On
Governments Attempts to Control Unwanted
Migration, (San Diego: Center for Comparative
Immigration Studies, 2004).
21.
Robinson and Segrott, Understanding DecisionMaking (see n. 20).
22. Day and White, Choice or Circumstance, (see

n. 20); Gilbert and Koser, Coming to the UK,
(see n. 20); Havinga and Bocker, By Choice or
by Chance (see n. 20); Robinson and Segrott,
Understanding Decision-Making (see n. 20).
23. Richardson, Sending a Message? (see n. 20).
24. Robinson and Segrott, Understanding DecisionMaking, (see n. 20).
25. Richardson, Sending a Message? (see n. 20).
26. Guy J. Coffey, Ida Kaplan, Robyn C. Sampson,
and Maria Montagna Tucci, The Meaning and
Mental Health Consequences of Long-Term
Immigration Detention for People Seeking
Asylum, Social Science & Medicine 70, no. 12
(2010): 2070-79.
27. London Detainee Support Group, No Return,
No Release, No Reason: Challenging Indefinite
Detention, (London: LDSG, 2010) http://detentionaction.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/
uploads/2011/10/No-Release_Report_WEB.
pdf In addition, airlines may refuse to accept
deportees on board if they are resisting deportation: Matthew Gibney and Randall Hansen,
Deportation and the Liberal State: The Forcible
Return of Asylum Seekers and Unlawful Migrants
in Canada, Germany and the United Kingdom,
In New Issues in Refugee Research Paper No. 77,
(Geneva: UNHCR, 2003) 12.
28. Mieke Kox, Leaving Detention? A Study on the
Influence of Immigration Detention on Migrants
Decision-Making Processes Regarding Return,
(The Hague: IOM, 2011).
29. Coffey et al., Meaning and Mental Health Consequences (see n. 26).
30. Richard Black, Khalid Koser, Karen Munk, Gaby
Atfield, Lisa DOnofrio and Richmond Tiemoko,
Understanding Voluntary Return: Home Office
Online Report 50/04, (London: Home Office,
2004); Robyn Sampson, Ignacio CorreaVelez, and Grant Mitchell, Removing Seriously
Ill Asylum Seekers from Australia (Melbourne:

Refugee Health Research Centre, 2007).
31.
Joris Van Wijk, Reaching out to the Unknown:

Native Counselling and the Decision-Making
Process of Irregular Migrants and Rejected
Asylum Seekers on Voluntary Return (The
Hague: IOM, 2008).
32. Anne Bathily, Immigration detention and its

Impact on Integration - A European approach
(Milan: Foundazione ISMU, 2014).
33. Equal Rights Trust, Unravelling Anomaly:
Detention, Discrimination and the Protection
Needs of Stateless Persons (London: The Equal
Rights Trust, 2010).
34. London Detainee Support Group, No Return, No
Release, No Reason (see n. 27).
35. B van Alphen, T Molleman, A Leerkes, J van
Hoek, Van bejegining tot vertrek Eenonderzoek naar de werking van vreemdelingenbewaring (The Hague: Onderzoek en beleid 308,
Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum, Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie,
2014), 150; A. Leerkes, E. Boersema, Het lot van
het inreisverbod, Memorandum 2014-2, (The
Hague: Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum, Ministerie van Veiligheid en
Justitie, 2014), http://www.researchgate.net/
publication/264942927_Van_bejegening_tot_
vertrek._Een_onderzoek_naar_de_werking_
van_vreemdelingenbewaring ; Mark Provera,
The Criminalisation of Irregular Migration in the
European Union, in CEPS Paper in Liberty and
Security in Europe, 80 (2015).
36. Coffey et al., Meaning and Mental Health
Consequences (see n. 26); Axel Klein and
Lucy Williams, Immigration Detention in the
Community: Research on the Experiences of
Migrants Released from Detention Centres in
the UK, Population, Space and Place 18, no. 6
(2012): 741-753.
38. Physicians for Human Rights and the Bellevue/
NYU Program for Survivors of Torture, From
Persecution to Prison: the Health Consequences
of Detention for Ssylum Seekers (Boston & New
York: PHR and The Bellevue/NYU Program for
Survivors of Torture, 2003); Katy Robjant, Rita
Hassan, and Cornelius Katona, Mental Health
Implications of Detaining Asylum Seekers:
Systematic Review, The British Journal of
Psychiatry 194 (2009): 306-12; Zachary Steel
and Derrick Silove, The Mental Health Implications of Detaining Asylum Seekers. eMedical
Journal of Australia 175 (2001): 596 - 99.
39. Soorej Jose Puthoopparambil, Magdalena
Bjerneld, and Carina Kllestl, Quality of Life
Among Immigrants in Swedish Immigration
Detention Centres: A Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study, Global Health Action 8 (2015), doi:
10.3402/gha.v8.28321.
40. Physicians for Human Rights et al., From persecution to prison, 5 (see n 38).
41.
Kathy Eagar, Janette Green, Kerry Innes, Lauren

Jones, Carmel Cheney-Fielding, Peter Samsa,
and Peter Eklund, The Health of People in
Australian Detention Centres - Health Profile and
Ongoing Information Requirements, (Wollongong, NSW: Centre for Health Service Development, University of Wollongong, 2007);
Aamer Sultan and Kevin OSullivan, Psychological Disturbances in Asylum Seekers Held in
Long Term Detention: A Participant-Observer
Account, eMedical Journal of Australia 175
(2001): 593 - 596.
42. Ann Lorek, Kimberly Ehntholt, Anne Nesbitt,

Emmanuel Wey, Chipo Githinji, Eve Rossor, and
Rush Wickramasinghe, The Mental and Physical
Health Difficulties of Children Held within a
British Immigration Detention Center: A Pilot
Study, Child Abuse & Neglect 33, no. 9 (2009):
573-85; Sarah Mares and Jon Jureidini, Psychiatric Assessment of Children and Families in
Immigration Detention - Clinical, Administrative
and Ethical Issues, Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Public Health 28, no. 6 (2004):
520-26; Zachary Steel, Shakeh Momartin,
Catherine Bateman, Atena Hafshejani, Derrick M.
Silove, Naleya Everson, Konya Roy, et al. Psychiatric Status of Asylum Seeker Families Held
for a Protracted Period in a Remote Detention
Centre in Australia, Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Public Health 28, no. 6 (2004):
527-36; Zachary Steel and Louise Newman, The
Child Asylum Seeker: Psychological and Developmental Impact of Immigration Detention,
Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North
America 17, no. 3 (2008): 665-683.
43. Coffey et al., Meaning and Mental Health Consequences (see n. 26); Masao Ichikawa, Shinji
Nakahara, and Susumu Wakai, Effect of PostMigration Detention on Mental Health among
Afghan Asylum Seekers in Japan, Australian
and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 40,
no. 4 (2006): 341-46; Zachary Steel, Derrick
Silove, Robert Brooks, Shakeh Momartin, Bushra
Alzuhairi, and Ina Susljik, Impact of Immigration Detention and Temporary Protection on the
Mental Health of Refugees, British Journal of
Psychiatry 188 (2006): 58-64.
44. Tony Ward, Long-term Health Costs of Extended
Mandatory Detention of Asylum Seekers,
(Melbourne: Yarra Institute for Religion and
Social Policy, 2011).
45. The International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights provides for the protection from arbitrary
detention in Article 9 and the protection of
freedom of movement in Article 12.
87
46. Discussed in full in Edwards, Back to Basics

(see n 17); Isabel Ricupero and Michael Flynn,
Migration and Detention: Mapping the International Legal Terrain, (Geneva: Global Detention
Project, 2009).
47. For this research, the responses varied, but,
when the word alternatives was used, respondents either did not know what they were, were
adamant that none existed in their countries,
or spoke only in terms of certain types of
alternatives. When the interview questions
were framed substantively, details of alternative measures were forthcoming. For further
details on how different organisations define
and view alternatives see, for example, UN High
Commissioner for Refugees, Guidelines on the
Applicable Criteria and Standards Relating to
the Detention of Asylum-Seekers and Alternatives to Detention, (Geneva: UNHCR, 2012);
Equal Rights Trust, Unravelling Anomaly (see n.
33); European Union Agency for Fundamental
Rights, Detention of Third-Country Nationals in
Return Procedures: Thematic Report, (Vienna:
FRA, 2010), 72-81.
48. Sampson and Mitchell, Global Trends (see n. 8).
49. Natasa Chmelickova, ed. Survey on Alternatives to Detention of Asylum Seekers in EU
Member States, (Regional Advocacy Coalition,
2006); Cathryn Costello and Ezra Kaytaz,
Building Empirical Evidence into Alternatives to Detention: Perceptions of AsylumSeekers and Refugees in Toronto and Geneva,
(Geneva: UNHCR, 2013); European Migration
Network, The Use of Detention and Alternatives to Detention in the Context of Immigration
Policies: Synthesis Report for the EMN Focussed
Study 2014, (European Commission, 2014);
Ophelia Field and Alice Edwards, Alternatives
to Detention of Asylum Seekers and Refugees,
(Geneva: UNHCR, 2006).
50. Amnesty International, Irregular Migrants and
Asylum-Seekers: Alternatives to Immigration
Detention, (London: Amnesty International,
2009); Edwards, Back to Basics (see n 17); Field
and Edwards, Alternatives to Detention (see n.
49).
51.
Nina Siulc, Zhifen Cheng, Arnold Son, and Olga

Byrne, Legal Orientation Program: Evaluation
and Performance and Outcome Measurement
Report, Phase II, (New York: Vera Institute of
Justice, 2008). The lack of an evidence-base for
migration programs is discussed in International
Organization for Migration, Assessing the Costs
and Impacts of Migration Policy: An International
Comparison, (Geneva: IOM, 2008).
52. Jane Aspden, Evaluation of the Solihull Pilot for

the United Kingdom Border Agency and the
Legal Services Commission. (UKBA and LSC,
2008); Andrew Cranfield, Review of the Alternative to Detention (A2D) Project, (London: Tribal
88
Group, 2009); Department of Immigration and

Citizenship, Community Care Pilot and Status
Resolution Trial, (Canberra: DIAC, 2009); Lisa
Nandy, An Evaluative Report on the Millbank
Alternative to Detention Project, (London:
The Childrens Society and Bail for Immigration Detainees, 2009); Eileen Sullivan, Felinda
Mottino, Ajay Khashu, and Moira ONeil, Testing
Community Supervision for the INS: An Evaluation of the Appearance Assistance Program
Volume 1 (New York: Vera Institute for Justice,
2000), http://www.vera.org/content/testingcommunity-supervision-ins-evaluation-appearance-assistance-program; Verbauwhede, Alternatives to Detention for Families with Minor
Children - The Belgium Approach (Belgian Presidency of the Council of the European Union,
2010), http://idcoalition.org/wp-content/
uploads/2010/09/discussant_i_ _alternatives_
for_detention.pdf
53. International Detention Coalition, Case Management as an Alternative to Immigration Detention:
The Australian Experience, (Melbourne: IDC,
2009); International Detention Coalition, Dignity
Without Exception: Alternatives to Immigration
Detention in Mexico, (Mexico City, Mexico: IDC,
2013); Grant Mitchell and Sara Kirsner, Asylum
Seekers Living in the Australian Community:
A Casework and Reception Approach, Asylum
Seeker Project, Hotham Mission, Melbourne,
Refuge, 22, no. 1 (2004): 119-28; Rutgers School
of Law - Newark Immigrant Rights Clinic and
American Friends Service Committee, Freed But
Not Free: A Report Examining the Current Use
of Alternatives to Immigration Detention, (New
Jersey: Rutgers and AFSC, 2012); Susan Weishar,
A More Humane System: Immigration Detention
through Community-Based Alternatives (Part
2), JustSouth Quarterly, no. Spring (2011): 4 & 9.
54. Department of Immigration and Citizenship,
Annual Report 2009-2010, (Canberra: DIAC,
2010) 159; Dita Vogel and Norbert Cyrus,
Irregular Migration in Europe - Doubts on the
Effectiveness of Control Strategies. (Hamburg:
Hamburg Institute of International Economics,
2008).
55. Examples are provided in Section 4.
56. Valerie Braithwaite, Compliance with Migration
Law: Report for the Department of Immigration
and Citizenship, (Canberra: DIAC, 2010); Costello
and Kaytaz Building Empirical Evidence (see n.
49); Ilan Katz, Abigail Powell, Sandra Gendera,
Tricia Deasy, and Erik Okerstrom, The Experiences of Irregular Maritime Arrivals Detained in
Immigration Detention Facilities: Final Report.
(Sydney: Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales and Australian Survey
Research Group, 2013).
57. Braithwaite, Compliance with Migration Law (see
n. 56); Costello and Kaytaz, Building Empirical
Evidence (see n. 49); Katz et al., Irregular

Maritime Arrivals Detained (see n. 56).
58. Costello and Kaytaz, Building Empirical Evidence
(see n. 49).
59. Edwards, Back to Basics (see n 17).
60. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Alternatives to Detention: Improved Data Collection
and Analyses Needed to Better Assess Program
Effectiveness (Washington, D.C.: US GAO, 2014),
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-26
30-31.
61.
62. Email from the Director of the Toronto Bail

Project 30.07.2015. On file with the IDC.
63. International Detention Coalition, Case Management as an Alternative (see n. 53).
64. Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Annual Report 2009-10 (Canberra: DIAC,
2010) 171.
65. United Kingdom Home Office, UK Freedom of
Information Request 34114. On file with the IDC.
66. Email from UNHCR Indonesia, 13 March 2015.
Copy on file with the IDC.
67. Oral testimony of Julie Myers Wood. S. 744
and the Immigration Reform and Control Act of
1986: Lessons Learned or Mistakes Repeated?
Hearing before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, One
Hundred Thirteenth Congress, First Session
on s.744. 22 May 2013. http://judiciary.house.
gov/_cache/files/3498f4a0-82f4-4902-a73bda2d54055f44/113-30-81174.pdf 81.
68. Of 19,905 third country nationals ordered
to leave, 12,988 returned voluntarily and 614
returned through an Assisted Voluntary Return
program. European Migration Network, Country
Factsheet: Sweden 2012. http://ec.europa.
eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/networks/
european_migration_network/reports/docs/
country-factsheets/sweden-emn-ountry-facthseet_en.pdf 6.
69. Jesuit Refugee Service Europe, From Deprivation to Liberty: Alternatives to Detention in
Belgium, Germany, and the United Kingdom,
(Brussels: JRS Europe, 2011).
70. An analysis of such cost savings can also be
found in Susan Banki and Ilan Katz, Resolving
Immigration Status Part 2: Comparative Case
Studies, (Sydney NSW: Social Policy Research
Centre UNSW, 2009); Edwards, Back to Basics
84 (see n 17); Field and Edwards, Alternatives to
Detention 48-50 (see n. 49).
71.
National Immigration Forum, The Math of Immigration Detention (2013) 1 http://www.immigrationforum.org/images/uploads/mathofimmigrationdetention.pdf
72. The annual cost of detaining an asylum seeker

in Australia was $239,000 in 2013-14: Australian
National Commission of Audit, The Report of the
National Commission of Audit (Canberra: NCOA,
2014) 10.14 http://www.ncoa.gov.au/report/
appendix-vol-2/10-14-illegal-maritime-arrivalcosts.html
73. Cost to operate the Asylum Seeker Assistance
Scheme. Based upon the provision of assistance to 2802 persons at a cost of AUD 9.058
million during 2009-2010: Australia Department
of Immigration and Citizenship, Annual Report
2009-2010, (Canberra: DIAC, 2010), Administered Item Payments to the Australian Red
Cross Society for the Asylum Seeker Assistance
Scheme https://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/annual-reports/
diac-annual-report-2009-10-full-version.pdf
74. Cost to operate the Community Care Pilot at
AUS$5.6 million for 2008/9 with a maximum of
400 people in the pilot during this period, with
an average daily cost of AUD $38.30. Excludes
case management costs. See Joint Standing
Committee on Migration, Inquiry into Immigration Detention in Australia: Report 2 Community-Based alternatives to Detention,(Canberra:
Commonwealth of Australia, 2009), 122 http://
www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/
Committees/Joint/Completed_Inquiries/mig/
detention/report2
75. Philippe De Bruycker (Ed.), Alice Bloomfield, Evangelia (Lilian) Tsourdi, and Joanna
Ptin, Alternatives to Immigration and Asylum
Detention in the EU: Time for Implementation,
(Odysseus Network and the European Union,
2015), 129 https://fluechtlingsdienst.diakonie.
at/sites/default/files/madereal-report-_alternatives_to_detention_in_the_eu.pdf
76. De Bruycker, Alternatives in the EU, 129 (see
n. 75).
77. Figures for 2013. Quoted in European Migration
Network, The Use of Detention and Alternatives to Detention in the Context of Immigration Policies in Belgium, (Brussels: EMN, 2014),
http://www.emnbelgium.be/publication/usedetention-and-alternatives-detention-contextimmigration-policies-belgium-and-eu-emn
78. EMN, Immigration Policies Belgium, see (n.77).
Although data for 2013 could not be located,
the cost per day per person for housing and
assisting asylum-seekers in open centres was
53 in 2009 (approximately USD $68). Mieke
Candaele, spokesperson for FEDASIL, quoted
in UNHCR, Alternatives to the Detention
of Asylum-Seekers in Belgium, (UNHCR,
89
November 2011), http://www.refworld.org/

docid/524fc3ef4.html
81.
82. This figure is for shelters for unaccompanied refugee and asylum seeking children. This
includes rental of premises, weekly allowances,
security, supplies, and activities for the children,
but excludes health care costs and the initial
purchase of furniture and equipment. Email from
UNHCR Indonesia, 2015. On file with the IDC.
83. U.S. GAO, Improved Data Collection 19 (see n.
60).
84. ISAP program. U.S. GAO, Improved Data Collection 19 (see n. 60).
85. Interview during fieldwork by Robyn Sampson.
86. UK National Audit Office, Returning failed
asylum applicants, (London: The Stationary
Office, 2005) 44.
87. Given some costs are the same across these two
models (i.e. airfares and some staffing costs);
the comparison is demonstrated by comparing
the non-common costs (i.e. location, detention
versus counselling, allowances). This allows
for a conservative estimate of the costs to be
compared. Senate Legal and Constitutional
Legislation Committee, Additional Budget
Estimates Hearing: Immigration and Citizenship Portfolio, (2009) http://www.aph.gov.au/~/
media/Estimates/Live/legcon_ctte/estimates/
add_0809/diac/38.ashx
88. See Medical Justice, Review into Ending the
Detention of Children for Immigration Purposes:
Response by Medical Justice, (2010) quoted in
89. OBrien, Natalie, Asylum Compo Bill Tops
$16m, The Sydney Morning Herald, June 12 2011.
90. Ward, Long Term Health Costs (see n. 44).
91.
As described in detail in Section 1.3.3. See

also Ichikawa et al. Effect of Post-Migration
Detention (see n. 43); Steel et al. Impact of
Detention (see n 43).
93. Cornelis J. Laban, Ivan H. Komproe, Hajo B. P. E.
Gernaat, and Joop T.V.M. de Jong. The Impact
of a Long Asylum Procedure on Quality of Life,
Disability and Physical Health in Iraqi Asylum
Seekers in the Netherlands. Social Psychiatry
and Psychiatric Epidemiology 43, no. 7 (2008):
507-15; Susan Rees, Refuge or Retrauma?
The Impact of Asylum Seeker Status on the
90
Wellbeing of East Timorese Women Asylum

Seekers Residing in the Australian Community,
Australasian Psychiatry, 11 Supplement, (2003):
96-101.
94. Ilan Katz, Geraldine Doney, and Effie Mitchell,
Evaluation of the Expansion of the Community
Detention Program: Final Report to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, (Sydney:
Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW, 2013) 8.
95. Katz, Evaluation of Community Detention (see
n. 94).
96. Australian Human Rights Commission, Immigration Detention at Villawood: Summary of Observations from Visit to Immigration Detention Facilities at Villawood, (Canberra: AHRC, 2012), 16.
97. For instance, evidence suggests returned asylum
seekers who were detained in Australia for long
periods were in a much more difficult position
trying to re-establish life than returned asylum
seekers who had not been detained: David
Corlett, Following Them Home: The Fate of the
Returned Asylum Seekers. (Melbourne: Black
Inc., 2005) 59. See Sampson, Correa-Velez and
Mitchell Removing Seriously Ill Asylum Seekers
(see n. 30) regarding the impact of poor health
on the ability to prepare for return and Coffey et
al., Meaning and Mental Health Consequences
(see n. 26) regarding the difficulties faced by
former detainees in building a new life after
release with a visa.
98. Field and Edwards argue that asylum seekers in
their destination country want to comply with
authorities while waiting for a visa outcome in
order to secure their future legal status, Field
and Edwards, Alternatives to Detention (see n.
49).
99. UNHCR, Refugee Protection and Mixed
Migration: A 10-point Plan of Action, (Geneva:
UNHCR, 2007). For a discussion of the
different types of irregular migrants see
Ryszard Cholewinski and Kristina Touzenis,
Irregular Migration into and through Southern
and Eastern Mediterranean Countries: Legal
Perspectives, In CARIM Analytic and Synthetic
Notes 2009/01 (Florence: Consortium for
Applied Research on International Migration,
2009) and Vogel and Cyrus Irregular Migration
in Europe (see n. 54).
100. See also Section 2.4.1. This was evident in field
work in Spain, Sweden, Hong Kong and the
Netherlands. This finding is evident in Field
and Edwards, Alternatives to Detention (see
n. 49); Mitchell and Kirsner Casework and
Reception Approach (see n. 53); Sullivan et al.,
Testing Community Supervision (see n. 52).
It is important to note that transit or destination status can only be established on a caseby-case basis for each individual (see Section
6.4.3).
101. Field and Edwards, Alternatives to Detention, iv

(see n. 49).
102. See Rutvica Andrijasevic, Lampedusa in Focus:
Migrants Caught between the Libyan Desert and
the Deep Sea, Feminist Review 82, no. 1 (2006):
120-25; Jacqueline Hagan, Karl Eschbach, and
Nestor Rodriguez, U.S. Deportation Policy,
Family Separation, and Circular Migration, The
International Migration Review 42, no. 1 (2008):
64; Stephen H. Legomsky, The USA and the
Caribbean Interdiction Program, Int J Refugee
Law 18, no. 3-4 (2006): 677-95; Janet Phillips
and Harriet Spinks, Background Note: Boat
Arrivals in Australia since 1976, (Canberra:
Parliamentary Library, Commonwealth of
Australia, 2011).
103. See also Section 5 Minimum Standards. This
was evident in field work in Sweden, Belgium
and Hong Kong. This finding is supported by
the findings of Edwards, Back to Basics (see
n 17); Jesuit Refugee Service Europe, From
Deprivation to Liberty, (see n. 69); Field and
Edwards, Alternatives to Detention 30-35
(see n. 49); Lucy Fiske and Mary Ann Kenny,
Marriage of Convenience or Match Made in
Heaven: Lawyers and Social Workers Working
with Asylum Seekers. Australian Journal of
Human Rights 10, no. 1 (2004): 137-57; Fleay,
Caroline, and Lisa Hartley. 2015. I Feel Like a
Beggar: Asylum Seekers Living in the Australian
Community Without the Right to Work. Journal
of International Migration and Integration (2015):
1-18, doi: 10.1007/s12134-015-0453-x; Lutheran
Immigration and Refugee Service, Alternatives to Detention Programs: An International
Perspective, (Washington, D.C.: LIRS, 2009);
Mitchell and Kirsner Casework and Reception
Approach (see n. 53).
104. For a discussion, see Jesuit Refugee Service
Europe Living in Limbo: Forced Migrant Destitution in Europe (Brussels: Jesuit Refugee
Service Europe, 2010). http://www.jrs.ie/jrsnews/220-living-in-limbo-forced-migrant-destitution-in-europe
105. Alice Bloch and Liza Schuster, Asylum and
Welfare: Contemporary Debates, Critical Social
Policy 22, no. 3 (2002): 393-414; Wayne A.
Cornelius, Controlling Unwanted Immigration:
Lessons from the United States, 1993-2004,
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 31, no. 4
(2005): 775-94; Sylvie Da Lomba, The Threat
of Destitution as a Deterrent against Asylum
Seeking in the European Union, Refuge 23, no.
1 (2006): 81-93; Thielemann Does Policy Matter
(see n. 20).
106. Hildegard Dumper, Richard Malfait, and Nick
Scott Flynn, Mental Health, Destitution & Asylum
Seekers: A Study of Destitute Asylum Seekers in
the Dispersal Areas of the South East of England,
(South of England Refugee & Asylum Seeker
Consortium, 2006). This coincides with research
that shows refugees mental health is significantly associated with current socio-political
circumstances: Matthew Porter and Nick Haslam,
Predisplacement and Postdisplacement Factors
Associated with Mental Health of Refugees and
Internally Displaced Persons: A Meta-Analysis,
Journal of American Medical Association 294,
no. 5 (2005): 602-12. For a discussion on the
importance of supporting health throughout
the assessment process, see Ignacio CorreaVelez, Vanessa Johnston, Joanne Kirk, and
Angeline Ferdinand, Community-Based Asylum
Seekers Use of Primary Health Care Services
in Melbourne, The Medical Journal of Australia
188, no. 6 (2008): 344-348; Sampson, CorreaVelez and Mitchell Removing Seriously Ill Asylum
Seekers (see n. 30).
107. This is discussed in more detail in Sections 7
Case management and 5.4 Legal advice. This
finding was evident in the United Kingdom,
Sweden, the United States, Australia, Belgium
and reinforced by the findings of Aspden, Evaluation of the Solihull Pilot (see n. 52); Edwards,
Back to Basics (see n 17); Field and Edwards,
Alternatives to Detention 45 (see n. 49); Fiske
and Kenny, Marriage of Convenience (see n.
103); Hotham Mission Asylum Seeker Project,
Providing Casework to Asylum Seekers at the
Final Stages: Discussion Paper, (Melbourne:
Hotham Mission, 2006), http://idcoalition.org/
paper-providing-casework-to-asylum-seekersat-the-final-stages/; Sullivan et al., Testing
Community Supervision (see n. 52).
108. Edwards, Back to Basics (see n 17) regarding the
Glasgow family return project. See also Jesuit
Refugee Service Europe, From Deprivation to
Liberty (see n. 69).
109. This was evident in Hungary, Hong Kong and
Spain. Unfortunately, there is very little data
establishing the effectiveness of community
management options in transit countries. Some
research points to the ways transit countries
are actually destination countries for many
people: it is a misconception that all or most
migrants crossing the Sahara are in transit to
Europe. There are possibly more sub-Saharan
Africans living in the Maghreb than in Europe
While Libya is an important destination country
in its own right, many migrants failing or not
venturing to enter Europe prefer to stay in North
Africa as a second-best option. Hein de Haas,
Irregular Migration from West Africa to the
Maghreb and the European Union: An Overview
of Recent Trends, In IOM Migration Research
Series, (Geneva: International Organization for
Migration, 2008) 9.
110. Field and Edwards, Alternatives to Detention, 51
(see n. 49).
91
111. MHub, Detained Youth: The Fate of Young

Migrants, Asylum-Seekers and Refugees in Libya
Today, (MHub, 2015), http://www.mixedmigrationhub.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/
MHUB_2015_Detained-Youth.pdf
117. The Directive of the European Parliament and

of the Council 2008/115/EC of 16 December
2008, on Common Standards and Procedures
in Member States for Returning Illegally Staying
Third-Country Nationals.
112. Edwards, Back to Basics, (see n 17).
118. The Directive of the European Parliament and of

the Council 2013/180/96 of 26 June 2013, Laying
Down Standards for the Reception of Applicants
for International Protection (Recast).
113. The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has
developed a set of guidelines and principles
on human rights-based migration governance.
The fundamental premise of these guidelines
and principles is that all migrants, regardless of
their legal status, how they arrive at the border,
where they come from or what they look like,
are entitled to enjoy their human rights. See
OHCHR, Recommended Principles and Guidelines on Human Rights at International Borders,
(Geneva: OHCHR, 2015) http://www.ohchr.org/
Documents/Issues/Migration/OHCHR_Recommended_Principles_Guidelines.pdf
114. For relevant international standards relating
to detention: see International Detention
Coalition, Legal Framework and Standards
Relating to the Detention of Refugees, Asylum
Seekers and Migrants, (Melbourne: IDC, 2011);
See also Amnesty International, MigrationRelated Detention: A Research Guide on Human
Rights Standards Relevant to the Detention
of Migrants, Asylum-Seekers and Refugees,
(London: Amnesty, 2007) http://www.unhcr.
org/refworld/docid/476b7d322.html; UNHCR,
Detention Guidelines (see n. 2).
115. For a discussion of the human rights that
underlie this presumption against detention,
see Edwards, Back to Basics (see n 17) and
European Union Agency for Fundamental
Rights, Detention of Third-Country Nationals,
80-81 (see n. 47).
116. Ruben Giustiniani, ed. Migracin: Un Derecho
Humano (Migration: A Human Right), (Buenos
Aires: Prometeo, 2004); Cristina Zurbriggen
and Lenin Mondol, Estado actual y perspectivas
de las polticas migratorias en el MERCOSUR
(Current situation and perspectives of migration
policies in MERCOSUR), (Montevideo: FLACSO,
2010); Barbara Hines, The Right to Migrate as a
Human Right: The Current Argentine Immigration Law, Cornell Intl L.J. 471 (2010); Also the
government reports: Argentine Republic, Initial
Report Submitted by the Argentine Republic
under Article 73 of the Convention on the
Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers
and Members of Their Families, 4 August
2010, CMW/C/ARG/1; Informe Nacional de la
Repblica Argentina sobre la Implementacin
de los Compromisos emanados de la Cuarta
Cumbre de las Amricas (National Reports on
the Implementation of Commitments from the
Fourth Summit of the Americas), XLVII GRIC/
SIRG Ministerial, GRIC/Inf.1/07, 22 May 2007.
92
119. European Union Agency for Fundamental

Rights, Fundamental Rights: Challenges and
Achievements in 2012, (Vienna: EU FRA, 2012).
120. European Migration Network, Synthesis Report
for the EMN Focussed Study 34 (see n. 49).
Rights, Fundamental Rights, 80-81 (see n. 119).
The report identifies such case law in Austria,
Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands and
Slovenia. Hong Kong case law has also required
that the government outline the reasons for
detention: Mark Daly, Refugee Law in Hong
Kong: Building the Legal Infrastructure, Hong
Kong Lawyer 09 (2009): 14-30.
122. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child,
Report of the 2012 Day of General Discussion:
The Rights of all Children in the Context of International Migration, (2012) http://www2.ohchr.
org/english/bodies/crc/docs/discussion2012/
ReportDGDChildrenAndMigration2012.pdf
123. UN General Assembly, Report of the Special
Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants,
Franois Crpeau. A/HRC/20/24 (2012). para
72(f); see also Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM),
Children First and Foremost: A Guide to
Realizing the Rights of Children and Families in
an Irregular Migrant Situation, (PICUM, 2013)
http://picum.org/picum.org/uploads/publication/Children%20First%20and%20Foremost.pdf
124. UN General Assembly, Report of the Special
Rapporteur para 72(f) (see n. 123).
125. UNICEF, Administrative Detention of Children:
A Global Report, (Geneva: UNICEF, 2011), 167,
226, 229.
126. Michael Dudley and Bijou Blick, The Heart of the
Nations Existence A Review of Reports on the
Treatment of Children in Australian Detention
Centres, (ChilOut, 2002) Appendix E; Sarah
Mares and Jon Jureidini, Psychiatric Assessment of Children and Families in Immigration
Detention - Clinical, Administrative and Ethical
Issues. Australian and New Zealand Journal of
Public Health 28, no. 6 (2004): 520-526; Human
Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, A
Last Resort? National Enquiry into Children in
Detention, (Canberra: HREOC, 2004); Zachary
Steel, The Politics of Exclusion and Denial:
The Mental Health Costs of Australias Refugee
Policy, Australian and New Zealand Journal of

Psychiatry 37, (2003): A45-A46.
127. Incarceration, even under relatively safe conditions, is damaging for immigrant children, especially those with high levels of previous trauma
exposure in Rachel Kronick, Ccile Rousseau,
and Janet Cleveland. Asylum-Seeking Childrens
Experiences of Detention in Canada: A Qualitative Study, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 85, no. 3 (2015): 287-94. See also David
Corlett, Grant Mitchell, Jeroen Van Hove, Lucy
Bowring and Katherine Wright, Captured
Childhood, (Melbourne: International Detention
Coalition, 2012) 51; Lorek et al., Children in
Detention (see n. 42).
128. Kronick, Rousseau and Cleveland, Asylumseeking childrens experiences of detention (see
n. 127).
138. European Migration Network, Policies, Practices

and Data on Unaccompanied Minors in 2014:
Hungary, (European Commission, 2014) http://
ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-wedo/networks/european_migration_network/
reports/docs/emn-studies/unaccompaniedminors/13a_hungary_unaccompanied_minors_
en.pdf
and Data Hungary (see n. 138).
and Data Hungary (see n. 138).
Rights, Fundamental Rights: Challenges and
Achievements in 2014, (Vienna: EU FRA. 2014),
http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fraannual-report-2014_en.pdf; UNHCR, Detention
Guidelines (see n. 2).
129. See also UNHCR and IRC, Field Handbook

for the Implementation of UNHCR BID Guidelines, (Geneva: UNHCR and IRC, 2011); UNHCR,
UNHCR Guidelines on Determining the Best
Interests of the Child, (Geneva: UNHCR, 2008).
142. John A. Dent, Research Paper on the Social and

Economic Rights of Non-Nationals in Europe,
(ECRE, undated).
130. Terry Smith and Laura Brownlees, Age Assessment Practices: A Literature Review & Annotated
Bibliography, (New York: UNICEF, 2011).
144. For a discussion, see Jesuit Refugee Service

Europe, Living in Limbo (see n.104).
131. Corlett et al., Captured Childhood, 65 (see n. 127)

132. Corlett et al., Captured Childhood, 65 (see n. 127)
General Comment No. 6: Treatment of Unaccompanied and Separated Children outside their
Country of Origin (2005), http://www2.ohchr.
org/english/bodies/crc/docs/GC6.pdf
Rights, Guardianship for Children Deprived of
Parental Care - A Handbook to Reinforce Guardianship Systems to Cater for the Specific Needs
of Child Victims of Trafficking, (Luxembourg:
Publication Office of the European Union, 2014).
General Comment No. 6, para 33 (see n. 133).
Rights, Guardianship (see n. 134).
137. Section 56 of Hungarys Act II of 2007 also
provides that children with families may be
detained as a measure of last resort and for a
maximum of 30 days, where the best interests
of the child shall be a primary consideration, and
if the immigration authorities are of the opinion
that the objectives of detention cannot be met
by the confiscation of travel documents or a
designated residence requirement.
143. As described in the above Section 2.5.
145. Bloch and Schuster, Asylum and Welfare:

Contemporary Debates (see n. 105); Cornelius
Controlling Unwanted Immigration (see n.
105); Da Lomba, The Threat of Destitution (see
n. 105); Thielemann Does Policy Matter (see n.
20).
146. Dumper et al., Mental health, Destitution &
Asylum Seekers (see n. 106). c.f. Hotham Mission
Asylum Seeker Project, Providing Casework,
(see n. 107); Sampson, Correa-Velez and Mitchell
Removing Seriously Ill Asylum Seekers (see n.
30).
147. As described in Section 2.5.
148. Council of the European Union, Directive
2013/33/EU, Article 17 (see n. 118).
149. Council of the European Union, Directive
2013/33/EU, Article 15 (see n. 118).
150. Information in this break out box is from interviews and site visits, with further references as
noted.
151. [B]earing in mind that the general objective of
a C.A.R. is to develop the capacity of the Centre
residents integration in Spanish society, the
Centre operates as a mediating agent in the integration process Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos
Sociales, Refugee Reception Centres (C.A.R.),
(Madrid: Calidad Administracion Publica, 2007).
152. Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales, C.A.R.:
Refugee Reception Centre, (Madrid: Ministerio
de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales, 2006).
93
153. UNHCR, Submission by the UNHCR for the

OHCHRs Compilation Report Universal Periodic
Review Spain, (Geneva: UNHCR, 2009).
154. For a discussion of the role of visas on resolving
migration status, see Susan Banki and Ilan Katz,
Resolving Immigration Status Part 1: Review of
the International Literature, (Sydney NSW: Social
Policy Research Centre UNSW, 2009); Banki and
Katz, Resolving Immigration Status Part 2 (see
n. 70).
155. UNHCR, Options Paper 2: Options for Government on Open Reception and Alternatives to
Detention, (Geneva: UNHCR, 2015) 6.
156. Tolerated status is granted to persons satisfying
the criteria laid out in article 99 of Romanias
Emergency Ordinance 194/2002 on aliens
regime in Romania. This includes persons
against whom a detention order was made but
who could not be returned within 6 months;
persons for whom there are serious reasons to
believe are victims of human trafficking; and
persons detained for deportation, but who could
not be removed within 2 years.
157. European Migration Network, Synthesis Report
for the EMN Focussed Study, 34 (see n. 49).
158. As described in Section 2.4.1 and 2.5. The importance of provision of information has been identified by Aspden, Evaluation of the Solihull Pilot
(see n. 52); Field and Edwards, Alternatives to
Detention 45 (see n. 49); and Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, An International
Perspective (see n. 103).
159. Costello and Kaytaz, Building Empirical
Evidence, 35 (see n. 49).
160. Ramji-Nogales, Schoenholtz and Schrag,
Refugee Roulette (see n. 214).
161. American Bar Association, Reforming the Immigration System: Proposals to Promote Independence, Fairness, Efficiency, and Professionalism
in the Adjudication of Removal Cases, (Washington DC: ABA, 2010); Aspden, Evaluation of
the Solihull Pilot (see n. 52).
162. Rutgers School of Law - Newark Immigrant
Rights Clinic and American Friends Service
Committee, Freed But Not Free (see n. 53).
163. Telephone interpretation services are available
in some countries. For instance, a number of
companies provide telephone interpretation
services in Australia. This is especially useful
when there are a small number of bilingual
speakers for a particular language and for those
in rural areas. Telephone interpretation is not
ideal but it does improve communication and
reduce the reliance on informal interpreters,
such as family members.
94
165. London Detainee Support Group, No Return,
No Release, No Reason (see n. 27). In addition,
airlines may refuse to accept deportees on
board if they are resisting deportation: Gibney
and Hansen, Deportation and the Liberal State,
(see n. 27).
166. UNHCR, Detention Guidelines: Guidelines on the
Applicable Criteria and Standards Relating to the
Detention of Asylum-Seekers and Alternatives to
Detention, (Geneva: UNHCR, 2012), http://www.
unhcr.org/refworld/docid/503489533b8.html
167. UNHCR and OHCHR, Global Roundtable on
Alternatives to Detention of Asylum-Seekers,
Refugees, Migrants and Stateless Persons:
Summary Conclusions, (May 2011) 31, http://
www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4e315b882.html
Committee, Freed But Not Free, 17 (see n. 53).
Rights, Handbook on European Law Relating to
Asylum, Borders and Immigration, (Vienna: EU
FRA, 2014), 165.
170. In Germany, immigration and asylum authorities, border guards and the police are responsible for conducting an individual assessment of
the grounds for detention, and will file an application for detention of a third-country national
with the courts. The final decision to detain
can only be made by the court. See European
Migration Network, Synthesis Report for the
EMN Focussed Study, 25 (see n. 49).
171. Eleanor Acer, Living up to Americas Values:
Reforming the U.S. Detention System for
Asylum Seekers, Refuge 20, no. 3 (2004):
44-57; Vladeck, Stephen I. Boumedienes Quiet
Theory: Access to Courts and the Separation
of Powers. Notre Dame Law Review 84, no. 5
(2009): 2107-2150.
172. For a discussion of the issues facing stateless
persons see Equal Rights Trust Unravelling
Anomaly (see n. 33).
173. For an in-depth description of this program see
Edwards Back to Basics (see n 17); Field and
Edwards Alternatives to Detention, 85-89 (see
n. 49).
174. Edwards Back to Basics (see n 17).
176. Email from the Director of the Toronto Bail
Project 30.07.2015. On file with the IDC.
Rights, Handbook on European Law (see n. 169).
178. For instance, Australia has been found to be

in breach of the right to be protected from
arbitrary detention on at least five occasions due
to its mandatory immigration detention laws.
Australian Human Rights Commission, Migration
Laws Must Live up to Australias Human Rights
Commitments, Media release, August 6th 2006,
http://www.humanrights.gov.au/about/media/
media_releases/2006/59_06.htm
179. International Organization for Migration,
National Referral Mechanism (NRM) for the
Protection of Vulnerable Migrants in Zambia,
(IOM, undated), https://www.iom.int/files/live/
sites/iom/files/Country/docs/National-ReferralMechanism-NRM-for-the-Protection-of-Vulnerable-Migrants-in-Zambia.pdf
180. International Organization for Migration, Guidelines: Protection Assistance for Vulnerable
Migrants in Zambia. (IOM Development Fund
and the European Union, undated), http://www.
iom.int/files/live/sites/iom/files/Country/docs/
Guidelines_Protection-Assistance-for-Vulnerable-Migrants.pdf
181. International Organization for Migration, Guidelines, Annex 1 (see n. 180).
182. International Organization for Migration, Training
Manual (Facilitators Guide): Protection Assistance for Vulnerable Migrants in Zambia, (IOM,
undated), https://www.iom.int/files/live/sites/
iom/files/Country/docs/Manual-ProtectionAssistance-for-Vulnerable-Migrants.pdf; International Organization for Migration, Participant
Handbook: Training on Protection Assistance for
Vulnerable Migrants in Zambia, (IOM, undated),
http://www.iom.int/files/live/sites/iom/files/
Country/docs/Participants-Handbook-Protection-Assistance-for-Vulnerable-Migrants.pdf
183. Kathleen King and Peter Vodicka, Screening
for Conditions of Public Health Importance in
People Arriving in Australia by Boat without
Authority, eMJA 175 (2001): 600-02.
184. For a discussion of the issues of the deportation
of individuals with a serious illness see Sampson,
Correa-Velez and Mitchell Removing Seriously Ill
Asylum Seekers (see n. 30).
185. Interview in Sweden.
186. Godfried Engbersen and Dennis Broeders, The
Fight against Illegal Migration: Identification
Policies and Immigrants Counterstrategies,
American Behavioral Scientist 50, no. 12 (2007):
1592-609.
187. Costello and Kaytaz Building Empirical Evidence
(see n. 49); Ilan Katz Abigail Powell, Sandra
Gendera, Tricia Deasy, and Erik Okerstrom,
The Experiences of Irregular Maritime Arrivals
Detained in Immigration Detention Facilities:
Final Report - SPRC Report 11/13, (Sydney: Social
Policy Research Centre, University of New South
Wales and Australian Survey Research Group,

2013).
188. Citizenship and Immigration Canada, ENF 20:
Detention. (CIC, 2007), Section 5.8 http://
www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/enf/
enf20-eng.pdf
189. Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service,
Unlocking Liberty: A Way Forward for U.S. Immigration Detention Policy, (Baltimore, MD: LIRS,
2011) 19.
190. LIRS, Unlocking Liberty, 19 (see n. 189).
191. Mark Noferi and Robert Koulish, The Immigration Detention Risk Assessment, Georgetown
Immigration Law Journal 29 Advanced Access
(2015): 45-93; Sampson and Mitchell, Global
Trends (see n. 8).
192. Jesuit Refugee Service Europe, Becoming
Vulnerable in Detention: Civil Society Report
on the Detention of Vulnerable Asylum Seekers
and Irregular Migrants in the European Union,
(Brussels: JRS Europe, 2010).
193. Lynn Gillam, Ethical Considerations in Refugee
Research: What Guidance do Australias
Research Ethics Documents Have to Offer?
Paper presented at Researching Refugees and
Asylum Seekers: Ethical Considerations at the
University of Melbourne, 17th November 2010;
JRS Europe, Becoming Vulnerable in Detention
(see n. 192).
194. Article 17.1 of the EU Council of Ministers
Directive 2003/9/EC Laying Down Minimum
Standards for the Reception of Asylum Seekers
in Member States (Official Journal of the
European Union L 31/20, 6 February 2003) lists
the following vulnerable groups: minors, unaccompanied minors, disabled people, elderly
people, pregnant women, single parents with
minor children and persons who have been
subjected to torture, rape or other serious forms
of psychological, physical or sexual violence
(Art. 17.1).
195. We note the age of an elder in many countries
of origin can be much lower than the age associated with being elderly in destination countries:
Rebecca Atwell, Ignacio Correa-Velez, and
Sandra M. Gifford, Ageing out of Place: Health
and Well-Being Needs and Access to Home and
Aged Care Services for Recently Arrived Older
Refugees in Melbourne, Australia, International
Journal of Migration, Health and Social Care 3,
no. 1 (2007): 4-14.
196. In Canada, officers are instructed to consider
alternatives to detention and ensure detention
is avoided or considered as a last resort for the
elderly: Citizenship and Immigration Canada,
ENF 20, Section 5.13 (see n. 188).
95
197. Laurel Anderson, Punishing the Innocent:

How the Classification of Male-to-Female
Transgender Individuals in Immigration
Detention Constitutes Illegal Punishment under
the Fifth Amendment, Berkeley Journal of
Gender, Law & Justice 25, no. 1 (2010): 1-31.
198. Interview in the United States.
Fact Sheet 64: Community Assistance Support
Program. (Canberra: DIAC, 2009).
200. International Detention Coalition, Legal
Framework and Standards (see n. 114).
201. Eduardo Arboleda, Refugee Definition in Africa
and Latin America: The Lessons of Pragmatism,
Int J Refugee Law 3, no. 2 (1991): 185-207.
202. Instead, they are to be placed by the Ministry
of Family and Social Policies in accommodation facilities in the care of their adult relatives
or in the care of a foster family (upon taking
into account the opinion of the unaccompanied
minor). Unaccompanied minors over the age of
16 can be placed in reception centers.
203. UNHCR, Refugee Protection and Mixed
Migration: The 10-Point Plan of Action, (Geneva:
UNHCR, 2012).
204. Field and Edwards Alternatives to Detention,
248 (see n. 49).
205. Coffey et al., Meaning and Mental Health
Consequences (see n. 26); Eagar et al., Health
in Immigration Detention (see n 41); Jesuit
Refugee Service Europe, Becoming Vulnerable in
206. Equal Rights Trust Unravelling Anomaly (see
n. 33); A Face to the Story, Point of No Return:
The Futile Detention of Unreturnable Migrants,
(Brussels: Flemish Refugee Action (Belgium),
Detention Action (UK), France terre dasile
(France), Menedk Hungarian Association for
Migrants, and ECRE, 2014), http://pointofnoreturn.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/PONR_
report.pdf
207. Sullivan et al., Testing Community Supervision,
30 (see n. 52); Field and Edwards Alternatives to
Detention, 25 (see n. 49).
208. Field and Edwards Alternatives to Detention,
27 (see n. 49); Jesuit Refugee Service Europe,
Alternatives to Detention of Asylum Seekers:
Working Paper, (Brussels: JRS Europe, 2008) 11.
209. For instance, the Hong Kong government lists
a lack of family or community ties as a factor
which might increase the likelihood of detention:
The detainee does not have fixed abode or
close connection (e.g. family or friends) in Hong
Kong to make it likely that he/she will be easily
located. Security Bureau Immigration Department, Detention Policy, (Hong Kong SAR: The
96
Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, undated). Also evidenced in
factors influencing decisions to release on bond:
Field and Edwards Alternatives to Detention,
206 UK and 225 USA (see n. 49).
210. Ccile Rousseau, Marie-Claire Rufagari, Dogratias Bagilishya, and Toby Measham, Remaking
Family Life: Strategies for Re-Establishing Continuity among Congolese Refugees During the
Family Reunification Process, Social Science &
Medicine 59, no. 5 (2004): 1095-1108; Brooke
Wilmsen and Sandra Gifford, Refugee Resettlement, Family Separation and Australias Humanitarian Programme, (Geneva: UNHCR, 2009).
211. This is a factor in decisions to release in the
United States (Box 12), Hong Kong (Box 14) and
Canada (Box 25). This is reinforced by claims
that it is easier, for the purposes of deportation,
to locate a person who entered a country legally
because of ongoing participation in established structures of society: Gibney and Hansen,
Deportation and the Liberal State (see n. 27).
212. As one study of recidivism amongst foreigners
found: The findings do not lend support to the
arguments that removable aliens pose a disproportionate risk of repeat involvement in local
criminal justice systems. Jennifer S. Wong,
Laura J. Hickman, and Marika Suttorp-Booth,
Examining Recidivism among Foreign-Born
Jail Inmates: Does Immigration Status Make a
Difference over the Long Term? Global Crime
(2015): 17.
213. As described in Section 2.5.2.
214. As described in Section 2.5.2.
215. Disparities in the adjudication of refugee and
visa cases is well documented. Alongside
regular training and review of decision makers,
legal advice for applicants is a key factor for
promoting accurate and consistent decisions
across decision makers: Jaya Ramji-Nogales,
Andrew I. Schoenholtz, and Philip G. Schrag,
Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication, Stanford Law Review 60, no. 2 (2007):
295(117).
216. Hotham Mission Asylum Seeker Project,
Providing Casework (see n. 107); Sampson,
Correa-Velez and Mitchell Removing Seriously Ill
Asylum Seekers (see n. 30).
noted. Detention policy has been influenced
heavily by decisions handed down in the cases
A, F, AS and YA v Director of Immigration
[2008] HKCU 1109 (CACV 314-317 of 2007, 18
July 2008) and Hashimi Habib Halim v Director
of Immigration [2008] HKCU 1576 (HCAL 139 of
2007, 15 October 2008). For a discussion, see
Daly, Refugee Law in Hong Kong (see n. 121).
218. Security Bureau Immigration Department,

Detention Policy, (see n. 208).
219. Hong Kong SAR has introduced a specific
process for migrants to apply for protection
from torture. See Daly, Refugee Law in Hong
Kong (see n. 121).
Providing Casework (see n. 107); International
Detention Coalition, Case Management as an
Alternative (see n. 53).
222. Adapted from Case Management Society of
Australia, What is Case Management? (CMSA,
undated) http://www.cmsa.org.au/definition.
html ; Sheldon Gelman and Arthur J. Frankel,
Case Management: An Introduction to Concepts
and Skills, (Chicago, Ill: Lyceum Books, 2004).
Providing Casework (see n. 107). For a description of the role of a case manager in a migration
context, see Box 15 Case Studies.
Providing Casework (see n. 107). For an example
of its use by an immigration authority, see
Department of Immigration and Multicultural
Affairs, Case Management in DIMA, (Canberra:
DIMA, n.d.).
225. Case study provided to researchers by an expert
involved in this case. A pseudonym has been
used.
226. Case study provided by one of the researchers
who was personally involved in the resolution of
this case. A pseudonym has been used.
227. See also Sebastian Sunderhaus, Regularization
Programs for Undocumented Migrants: Working
paper 142, (Koln/New York: The Center for
Comparative Immigration Studies, 2006) http://
ccis.ucsd.edu/wp-content/uploads/WP_142.pdf
228. The Department of Immigration and Border
Protection will refer individuals to the SRSS
program by bands; individuals will then be
eligible for services based on the band they
are in. For an overview of the different bands
and services provided, see Australian Red
Cross, Addressing the Humanitarian Needs
of Migrants in Transition: Status Resolution
Support Overview, (Australian Red Cross,
undated) http://refugeehealthnetwork.org.
au/wp-content/uploads/Red-Cross-SRSSoverview1.pdf; Adult Multicultural Education
Services, Status Resolution Support Services
(SRSS) Overview, (AMES, 2014), http://refugeehealthnetwork.org.au/wp-content/uploads/
AMES-SRSS-Overview.pdf
Community Care Pilot (see n. 52).
230. These costs have been calculated as follows:

The Community Care Pilot cost $5.6 million for
2008/9 with a maximum of 400 people in the
pilot during this period: the average daily cost is
calculated at $38.30, excluding case management costs. Joint Standing Committee on
Migration, Inquiry into Immigration Detention,
122 (see n. 74). We have reported the cost of
detention as used for detention debts. Joint
Standing Committee on Migration, Inquiry
into Immigration Detention in Australia: A New
Beginning. First report: Criteria for Release
from Detention, (Canberra: Commonwealth of
Australia, 2008) 112.
231. Department of Immigration and Citizenship
Annual Report 2009-2010, 168 (See n. 73).
232. The International Organization for Migration has
found that additional investment by returning
states in reintegration support in countries of
origin is likely to render the return most sustainable with flow-on benefits such as encouraging
other irregular migrants to return home voluntarily and incentivizing returnees to stay home.
International Organization for Migration: Return
Migration: Policies and Practices in Europe,
(Geneva: IOM, 2004) 7.
233. Information in this break out box is from interviews and further references as noted.
234. Sullivan et al., Testing Community Supervision,
16 (see n. 52).
235. Field and Edwards Alternatives to Detention, 92
(see n. 49).
Providing Casework (see n. 107); c.f. The Centre
for Social Justice, Asylum Matters: Restoring
Trust in the UK Asylum System. (London: The
Centre for Social Justice, 2008) 4.
237. Information in this break out box is from interviews, site visits and further references as noted.
238. Families who do not fall within this criteria are
provided with accommodation for a limited
period in an open return centre established
in 2013 in the town of Holsbeek. The facility is
jointly managed by FEDASIL and the Immigration Office and during their stay, families are
counselled on the possibility of either obtaining
a residence permit or voluntary return to their
country of origin. See European Migration
Network, Focused study of Belgium (see n. 77).
239. UNHCR, Alternatives to the Detention of
Asylum-Seekers in Belgium. (Brussels: UNHCR,
2011) 14, http://www.cbar-bchv.be/Portals/0/
Juridische%20informatie/Asiel/Analyses/
UNHCR-Alternatives_to_Detention-RoadmapBelgium-ENG-screen.pdf
240. UNHCR, Alternatives in Belgium 14 (see n. 238).
97
241. Pieter Stockmans, Return Homes as an Alternative to Detention, Presentation at the Expert
Meeting on Detention in the Framework of the
Eastern Partnership Panel on Migration and
Asylum, Chisinau, Moldova. 26-27 March 2014.
242. UNHCR, Alternatives in Belgium 14 (see n. 238).
243. US Citizenship and Immigration Services
Questions and Answers: Victims of Human Trafficking, T Nonimmigrant Status. (Washington,
D.C: US Citizenship and Immigration Services,
2010).
244. Sarah Craggs and Ruzayda Martens, Rights,
Residence and Rehabilitation: A Comparative
Study Assessing Residence Options for Trafficked Persons, (Geneva: IOM, 2010) 67.
245. This information was provided to the International Detention Coalition by a regional expert,
with further references as noted.
246. UNHCR, High Commissioners Dialogue on
Protection Challenges: Breakout Session 1:
Gaps in the International Protection Framework
and in Its Implementation 8-9 December,
(Geneva: UNCHR, 2010) http://www.unhcr.
org/4d09e47a9.pdf
247. Foreign Ministry of Argentina, Informe elaborado
en cumplimiento de la A/RES/67/172: La
perspectiva de derechos humanos en el tratamiento de la cuestin migratoria en la Repblica
Argentina, (FMA, 2013).
248. P.A.R. Migration through Morocco: No Way
Forward or Back, The Economist, February 11th,
2014, http://www.economist.com/blogs/pomegranate/2014/02/migration-through-morocco
249. IRIN, Morocco: The Forgotten Frontline of the
Migrant Crisis, July 29th, 2015, http://allafrica.
com/stories/201507301776.html
250. Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism, Annual Report on Migration,
(Brussels: CEOOR, 2013) 118.
251. Isabelle Johansson, Particularly Distressing
Circumstances: Regularization and Employment
in Sweden, REGAINE Assessment Report (International Centre for Migration Policy Development, 2014) 17-18.
252. Article 2 of Act II of 2007 states that exile
means any person who is provided temporary
shelter and may not be returned to the country
of his/her nationality, or in the case of a stateless
person, to the country of domicile, for fear of
being subjected to capital punishment, torture
or any other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment, and there is no safe third country
offering refuge, and who is not entitled to
asylum or treatment as a stateless person, nor to
any subsidiary form of protection or temporary
protection.
98
253. European Migration Network, Ad-Hoc Query

on Implementing Tolerated Stay, (EMN, 2014),
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-wedo/networks/european_migration_network/
reports/docs/ad-hoc-queries/illegal-immigration/549_emn_ahq_on_implementing_
tolerated_stay_03072014_en.pdf
254. Cragg and Martens, Rights, Residence and Rehabilitation, 132 (see n. 244).
255. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime,
Toolkit to Combat Trafficking in Persons,
(Geneva: UNODC, 2008) 326.
256. As discussed in Section 7, a robust case
management system and regular engagement
with caseworkers help ensure that individuals are better supported and managed in the
community to achieve case resolution.
257. Sections 57 and 127 of Brazils Law No. 6,815
of August 19, 1980, the Foreigners Statute
(Estatuto do Estrangeiro).
noted. Further information available at http://
www.migrationsverket.se/info/skydd_en.html
259. Grant Mitchell, Asylum Seekers in Sweden,
(August 2001) http://www.fabian.org.au/940.
asp
260. Of 19,905 third country nationals ordered
to leave, 12,988 returned voluntarily and 614
returned through an Assisted Voluntary Return
program. European Migration Network, Country
Factsheet: Sweden 2012, (EMN, 2012) 6, http://
ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-wedo/networks/european_migration_network/
reports/docs/country-factsheets/swedenemn-ountry-facthseet_en.pdf.
261. Grant Mitchell, Asylum Seekers in Sweden: An
Integrated Approach to Reception, Detention,
Determination, Integration and Return, (2001),
http://idcoalition.org/asylum-seekers-insweden/
262. Franck Dvell, Transit Migration: A Blurred and
Politicised Concept, Population, Space and
Place 18, no. 4 (2012): 415-427; Aspasia Papadopoulou-Kourkoula, Transit Migration: The
Missing Link between Emigration and Settlement
(Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008).
263. There is now large-scale economic and political
investment by the European Union in the ability
of its nearest neighbours to halt the travel of
migrants, including in Eastern Europe, Turkey
and northern Africa. The United States has
also taken such measures to reduce migration
through Mexico and other Latin American
countries, while Australia has invested in such
intervention in Indonesia. See Jason De Len,
The Efficacy and Impact of the Alien Transfer
Exit Programme: Migrant Perspectives from

Nogales, Sonora, Mexico, International Migration
51, no. 2 (2013): 10-23; Ral Hernndez i Sagrera,
Exporting EU Integrated Border Management Beyond EU Borders: Modernization and
Institutional Transformation in Exchange for
More Mobility? Cambridge Review of International Affairs 27, no. 1 (2014): 167-83; Kemal
Kirisci, Reconciling Refugee Protection with
Efforts to Combat Irregular Migration: The Case
of Turkey and the European Union, In Global
Migration Perspectives, edited by Jeff Crisp and
Khalid Koser, (Geneva: Global Commission on
International Migration, 2004); Amy Nethery
and Stephanie J. Silverman, eds. Immigration Detention: The Migration of a Policy and Its
Human Impact, (Ashgate: Routledge, 2015); Amy
Nethery, Brynna Rafferty-Brown, and Savitri
Taylor, Exporting Detention: Australia-Funded
Immigration Detention in Indonesia, Journal
of Refugee Studies (2012) doi: 10.1093/jrs/
fes027; Florian Trauner and Stephanie Deimel,
The Impact of EU Migration Policies on African
Countries: The Case of Mali, International
Migration 51, n. 4(2013): 20-32.
264. Papadopoulou-Kourkoula, Transit Migration (see
n. 262).
265. Antje Missbach, Making a Career in PeopleSmuggling in Indonesia: Protracted Transit,
Restricted Mobility and the Lack of Legal Work
Rights, Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in
Southeast Asia 30, no. 2(2015): 423-454.
266. MHub Detained Youth (see n. 111).
267. Information provided to the IDC by a national
expert.
268. This was evident in Hungary, Hong Kong and
Spain. Unfortunately, there is very little research
establishing the effectiveness of community
management options in transit countries. Some
research points to the ways transit countries
are actually destination countries for many
people: de Haas, Irregular Migration from West
Africa, (see n. 109).
269. Joe Biden, A plan for Central America, The
New York Times, January 29th 2015, http://www.
nytimes.com/2015/01/30/opinion/joe-biden-aplan-for-central-america.html
272. UNHCR, UNHCR Welcomes the Envisaged

Changes in the Administrative Detention of Third
Country Nationals Press release, February 19th,
2015 http://www.unhcr.gr/nea/artikel/24dcef5d
13ebd29a1559fc4d7339ad10/unhcr-welcomesthe-envisaged-changes.html
273. Banki and Katz, Resolving Immigration Status
Part 2, 102 (see n. 70); Field and Edwards, Alternatives to Detention, 47 (see n. 49).
275. See Article 46 of the Venezuelan Immigration
Law and Migration No. 37.944 of 24 May, 2004.
276. Banki and Katz, Resolving Immigration Status
Part 2, 14-16 (see n. 70); Field and Edwards,
Alternatives to Detention, 45 (see n. 49).
(see n. 49).
(see n. 49).
(see n. 49).
280. Pursuant to section 48(2) of Hungarys of
Hungarys Act II of 2007 on the Admission and
Rights of Residence of Third-Country Nationals
(see n. 49).
282. We have not come across any examples of
authorities using new communication technologies such as email, SMS/text messages, Skype
or web-based log in for reporting purposes. This
may be worth further exploration, as it has the
potential to increase contact with authorities
while limiting impositions on daily life.
283. Persons released to [the Toronto Bail Project]
are initially required to report twice weekly
to the offices of TBP in downtown Toronto.
Reporting requirements are softened as trust
develops between the two parties and there are
no lapses in reporting. Edwards, Back to Basics,
58 (see n 17).
Committee, Freed But Not Free, 16 (see n. 53).
270. Mana Rabiee, Greece pledges to shut immigration detention centers, Reuters U.S.,
February 14th 2015, http://www.reuters.com/
video/2015/02/14/greece-pledges-to-shutimmigrant-detenti?videoId=363197263
285. Information in this break out box is from De

Bruycker, Alternatives in the EU, 129 (see n. 75),
with further references as noted.
271. Karolina Tagaris, Greece pledges to shut

immigration detention centers. Reuters U.K.
February 14th 2015. http://uk.reuters.com/
article/2015/02/14/uk-greece-politics-immigrants-idUKKBN0LI0Q720150214
287. Information in this break out box based on

Sullivan et al., Testing Community Supervision
(see n. 52).
286. Information obtained during fieldwork.
288. Unlike bond or bail programs, there were no

financial consequences for the guarantor upon
non-compliance in this program.
99
289. A detailed breakdown of cost outcomes is found

at Sullivan et al., Testing Community Supervision, 64-69 (see n. 52).
(see n. 49) also recommend further research in
this area.
291. It is important to be aware that some detainees
may be exploited if they become indebted to
unscrupulous guarantors.
292. Information in this break out box is from
Edwards, Back to Basics (see n 17) and other
references as noted.
293. Citizenship and Immigration Canada, ENF 20
(see n. 188).
294. Community Legal Education Ontario, Being
Arrested and Detained for Immigration Reasons,
(CLEO, 2008), http://www.worldcat.org/title/
being-arrested-and-detained-for-immigrationreasons/oclc/795156883&referer=brief_results
295. As discussed in Section 1.3.2. See also Costello
and Kaytaz, Building Empirical Evidence (see
n. 49); London Detainee Support Group, No
Return, No Release, No Reason (see n. 27).
296. For a discussion on issues of sustainable return
see Ruerd Ruben, Marieke Van Houte, and Tine
Davids. What Determines the Embeddedness of
Forced-Return Migrants? Rethinking the Role of
Pre- and Post-Return Assistance. International
Migration Review 43, no. 4 (2009): 908-37.
297. APT, IDC and UNHCR, Monitoring Immigration
298. Department Order No. 94/1998, Establishing
a Procedure for Processing Applications for
the Grant of Refugee Status [Philippines], 4
March 1998, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/
docid/3ede2d914.html
299. Information in this break out box based on
the expert knowledge of staff of the International Detention Coalition, and from Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Fact Sheet
85: Removal Pending Bridging Visa, (Canberra:
DIAC, 2007).
300. Information provided to the IDC by a national
expert.
301. Electronic monitoring has been used in
migration matters primarily in the USA: Field and
Edwards, Alternatives to Detention, 36-38 (see
n. 49).
302. Information in this break out box is from interviews and site visit. Further information available
at http://www.migrationsverket.se/info/skydd_
en.html
303. Committee for the Prevention of Torture, Report

to the Swedish Government on the Visit to
Sweden Carried Out by the European Committee
for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from
9 to 18 June 2009, http://www.cpt.coe.int/
documents/swe/2009-34-inf-eng.htm
International Detention Coalition, 2015
HJCD-IDC15-14
This report is available online at http://www.idcoalition.org

There Are Alternatives

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

There Are Alternatives

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

There are

A handbook for preventing

Including the Revised

The International Detention Coalition (IDC) is a unique global

2. The case for alternatives

3. Community Assessment and Placement: Introducing the Revised CAP model

4. Liberty: Presumption against detention

Key issue: Ensuring the right to liberty for child migrants

Identification and decision-making

Key issue: Resolving migration status

Key issue: Hosting transit migrants

Suggested further reading

Appendix A Research methods

A presumption of liberty in law - Argentina

Alternatives to detention in law - Poland, Croatia and New Zealand

Prohibiting the detention of vulnerable individuals - China

Ending immigration detention of children - A snapshot of global trends

Unaccompanied children are not to be detained - Hungary

Ensuring asylum seekers can meet their basic needs - Spain

Formal status and documentation - Various countries

Box 10. Regular review - Canada and the European Union

Screening and assessment in a mixed migration context - Zambia

Box 12. Screening and assessment - the United States

Box 13. Prohibiting the detention of vulnerable individuals - Turkey

Box 16. Intensive case resolution with complex cases - Australia

Making plans for life after return - the Netherlands

Box 18. Preparing families for independent departure - Belgium

Box 20. Protecting victims of trafficking - Europe

Box 21. Reception in the community - Sweden

Box 22. Closing detention centres in favour of alternatives - Greece

Box 23. Reporting as a monitoring mechanism - Various countries

Box 24. Supervision during removal proceedings - the United States

Box 25. Bail as a consequence for non-compliance - Canada

Box 26. Detention release options - Various countries

Figure 2: Understanding the population through individual assessment

Figure 3: Assessing vulnerability

Figure 4: The case management process

THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES (REVISED EDITION)

A revised and strengthened definition of alternatives to detention which incorporates the

Benefits local populations and minimises national security concerns

THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES (REVISED EDITION)

Detention is shown to be legal, necessary

Detention is only used as a last resort in

Community options are as effective as

The case for alternatives

Do not apply only to vulnerable individuals

Do not refer only to accommodation

Do not necessarily require the application of

Do not refer to alternative forms of

Most countries do not use detention as the

A number of countries rarely resort to

THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES (REVISED EDITION)

asylum seekers, refugees and migrants are

A COMPARISON OF DETENTION AND ALTERNATIVES

Is harmful to health and wellbeing

Support health and wellbeing

Interferes with human rights

Respect and fulfill human rights

Does not encourage participation in case

Strengthen participation in case resolution

Is not an effective deterrent

Can expose governments to litigation for

Improve voluntary and independent

Can help stabilize vulnerable individuals

2. The case for alternatives

3. Community Assessment and Placement: Introducing the Revised CAP model

4. Liberty: Presumption against detention

Key issue: Ensuring the right to liberty for child migrants

Identification and decision-making

Key issue: Resolving migration status

Key issue: Hosting transit migrants

Suggested further reading

Appendix A Research methods

A presumption of liberty in law - Argentina

Alternatives to detention in law - Poland, Croatia and New Zealand

Prohibiting the detention of vulnerable individuals - China

Ending immigration detention of children - A snapshot of global trends

Unaccompanied children are not to be detained - Hungary

Ensuring asylum seekers can meet their basic needs - Spain

Formal status and documentation - Various countries

Box 10. Regular review - Canada and the European Union

Screening and assessment in a mixed migration context - Zambia

Box 12. Screening and assessment - the United States

Box 13. Prohibiting the detention of vulnerable individuals - Turkey

Box 16. Intensive case resolution with complex cases - Australia

Making plans for life after return - the Netherlands

Box 18. Preparing families for independent departure - Belgium

Box 20. Protecting victims of trafficking - Europe

Box 21. Reception in the community - Sweden

Box 22. Closing detention centres in favour of alternatives - Greece

Box 23. Reporting as a monitoring mechanism - Various countries

Box 24. Supervision during removal proceedings - the United States

Box 25. Bail as a consequence for non-compliance - Canada

Box 26. Detention release options - Various countries

Figure 2: Understanding the population through individual assessment

Figure 3: Assessing vulnerability

Figure 4: The case management process